Punditry

A quote from a June 18th Pastoral Letter by Most Rev. John W. Yanta, Bishop of Amarillo was recently quoted on Dawn Eden’s blog.

"Dressing or putting on one’s clothes is a moral act and wearing them is a moral act."

The bishop immediately adds:

There are different appropriate modes of dress for different occasions, e.g. in the privacy of our home, with our spouse only or with our children in our home, at work or school, in mixed company, at the lake or swimming pool, grocery shopping, at church, etc.

His pastoral letter quotes heavily from the Catechism and talks mainly of the virtues.

The Feministe blog takes exception to the quote and letter that they found via Dawn.

Which is interesting, as these two statements seem to indicate that men shouldn’t leer at women. Which apparently gets translated into telling those temptresses to cover it up, because if the dudes are looking at you, it’s because you’re dressed like a harlot and you’re inciting them.

The Bishop is careful to couch all of his admonishments in gender-neutral terms, but anyone with a teaspoon of common sense understands that when we’re critcizing people for wearing “provocative,” “suggestive,” “tight,” and “sexual” clothing, we probably aren’t talking to the guys.

It is no surprise that a feminist blog would only see this in a terms of there "blaming us" when it comes to modesty since this is such a common argument and that the issue of modesty only addresses what women wear. While for the most part it is true that in our current culture that it is more likely that women dress immodestly, it has not always been so. Cod pieces and other paraphernalia are currently out of style, but men throughout history have also been guilty of dressing immodestly.

I do wonder how feminism went off the tracks from wanting respect and equality of treatment to not having a problem with women being mainly seen as a sexual commodity and viewed mainly by sexual attributes. There is of course a total lack of understanding that modesty in dress is a charitable act. Custody of the eyes is hard enough to practice in these times unless you happen to be wearing dark glasses and walking around with a white cane. Concupiscence is a reality and whether male or female actively dressing modestly is truly a moral act and a very charitable one.

Kathy Shaidle posts on the recent Clean Flicks court case

What if there was a company called Dirty Flicks that added nudity and swearing to movies like Because of Winn Dixie or whatever it was called, to make them more appealing to non-Christians?

Then how would you feel?

Oh, but that’s different.

You can’t explain why, can you?

Well I once wrote a parody post on the Secularizer that did just that.

Now as to her question there is a difference in degree between adding content and removing content, especially content that does not advance the plot and is inserted gratuitously. Though both methods could be used to truly change the film from what the artist intended.

Now I would be much more sympathetic to the argument about artistic control if they refused to license their movies to broadcast and cable stations where the content is edited for time and/or content. I also wonder if I am infringing their copyright if I hit fast forward or next chapter on my remote to skip past some gratuitous sex scene. Thankfully Catholics aren’t puritans and we don’t want to Ned Flanderize everything. It would be silly to watch Saving Private Ryan and hear soldiers saying during a firefight "golly gee wiz."

What Hollywood should be doing is giving people some options when playing back a DVD since they are such proponents of choice in the first place. As the DVD was first being introduced this one one of the original selling points that you could basically change the rating of a movie during playback. This never materialized since it would only highlight just how totally unnecessary most sex scenes are to the plot or artistic merit of the film. Well crafted movies with great direction, cinematography, plot, and acting are usually not called edgy, a label that seems to be most desired by some directors.

Louise Noe of Toledo marveled at the nearly 5-foot-tall monument unveiled yesterday outside of St. Hedwig’s Catholic Church on Lagrange Street, and in a quiet, sincere voice said, "That’s beautiful, that’s gorgeous."

The red-tinted, marble monument, with the Ten Commandments inscribed in gold, sits on the church’s front lawn, next to the steps that lead up to the doors of the more than 100-year-old church.

The petite, 81-year-old woman, who was barely taller than the monument, stood with her friend, Lottie Czekaj, 79, of Toledo, as she read aloud the inscription of a psalm at the base of the monument.

The Rev. Marek Ciesla of St. Hedwig’s said the monument, given to the church by the Knights of Columbus Monsignor O’Connell Council 386, is the sign of hope and faith the community needs.

"We don’t want this to be just a piece of marble," he said after yesterday’s unveiling. "We want it to be a sign of something deeper."

St. Hedwig’s is the first church in the Catholic Diocese of Toledo, which encompasses 159 parishes, to erect this kind of monument.

But Father Ciesla hopes it’s the first of many.

The monument is part of a larger fund-raising effort to build a 24-foot-tall bronze statue of Moses in Washington to be called the National Judeo-Christian Memorial. Construction is expected to begin in 2008.

What would be most fitting in our nations’s capitol would be a statue of Moses shattering the Ten Commandments when he finds out what’s been going on on his return.

Thinking about this I just realized Moses is the only one to break the Ten Commandments with approval from God.

From the Archdiocese of L.A.’s site.

It has taken the shortage of priestly and religious vocations to awaken in us an appreciation of a broadly based shared ministry and a realization that it is in the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ to be endowed with many gifts, ministries and offices. What some refer to as a "vocations crisis" is, rather, one of the many fruits of the Second Vatican Council, a sign of God’s deep love for the Church, and an invitation to a more creative and effective ordering of gifts and energy in the Body of Christ. This is a time of great challenge and opportunity in the Church, not least of all because the gifts of the lay faithful have been flourishing in unprecedented numbers and in unforeseen ways. [Emphasis added.] [Via Thoughts of a Regular Guy]

As Paul said "Priests? We don’t need no stinkin’ priests!" So by this very odd reasoning I guess those diocese that are much more faithful to the magisterium and are bursting with vocations to the priesthood and religious life are not experiencing "a sign of God’s deep love for the Church." I guess the sign of filled seminaries is a sign of God’s wrath to those diocese. I guess the countries of Africa and the country of India is also missing out on "a sign of God’s deep love for the Church" since the growth of vocations is diminishing their chance for an effective reordering. Sure less access to the sacraments is really something to be called a fruit. I mean what can a priest do that lay ministerial assistants can’t do besides minor points like hear confession, celebrate the Mass, give the Sacrament of the Sick, etc, etc. I mean we don’t need any of this "Pray to the lord of the harvest" nonsense anymore when we can just create pastoral assistants.

This statement on the Archdiocese website is so full of spin that it would make a gyroscope dizzy. Though on the bright side maybe it is evidence that Mr Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf who declared "Baghdad is safe" while American troops were fighting in the background found a nice job writing copy for the Archdiocese of L.A.

Recently there has been much talk in St. Blogs on Medjugorje and the recent homily given by Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar-Duvno, in Bosnia-Herzegovina and said that "the flood of so-called apparitions, messages, secrets, and signs do not strengthen the faith, but rather further convince us that in all of this there is nothing neither authentic nor established as truthful."

Rich at A Catholic Dentist (Shouldn’t his blog be called The Way, The Tooth, and the Light?) asked me my opinion on a post he wrote on the subject. I find his take to be right on especially in how he addresses the question of the Pope’s role in this situation. He also makes some good points on the the ordinary magisterium. As an aside I once posted a question as to whether a Catholic dentist is one where instead of gas you were asked to "offer it up" instead.

Kevin Knight at the excellent New Advent blog also has a good post on the subject when he says in relation to the Bishop’s homily.

Fortunately, Bishop Peric has just given us all a way to judge for ourselves:

Therefore I responsibly call upon those who claim themselves to be “seers”, as well as those persons behind the “messages”, to demonstrate ecclesiastical obedience and to cease with these public manifestations and messages in this parish. In this fashion they shall show their necessary adherence to the Church, by neither placing private “apparitions” nor private sayings before the official position of the Church.

It’s a simple litmus test in the Church, confirmed by centuries of practical experience: if the apparitions are true, they’ll stop now.

I would only add that if the apparitions are true that the "seers" themselves will cease publicly talking about them. Obedience is a not a perfect sign in this matter, but disobedience certainly would be.

There was a time before officially coming into the Church that I followed the happenings at Medjugorje fairly closely and even went to a speech given by one of the "seers." I later decided though not to give them much credence. When it comes to private revelation even those that the Church has approved as being consistent with the teachings of the Church do not require that the faithful accept the apparitions themselves. I happen to accept previous apparitions that the Church has approved such as Fatima, Lourdes, etc. When it comes to Medjugorje I am pretty much a skeptic and will remain one unless the Church does approve it at some future point. Regardless though I don’t need any apparition to know that I need to pray and to fast more and if I want to see a miracle I will simply go to Mass.

My man skepticism on Medjugorje is that it certainly doesn’t follow the pattern of previously approved apparitions. Though not definitive proofs in themselves the fact that these messages have gone on for 25 years is rather strange. That none of the "seers" had a calling to priestly or religious life seems to be also telling along with their apparent lack of humility. There has also been much disobedience related in this matter, especially with the Franciscans involved in promoting it. The fact that both bishops of this diocese along with their bishop’s conference have determined that this is not of supernatural origin should be enough to put aside this question. There have of course been previous private revelation that was at first not seen by the local ordinary as of supernatural origin that was later revisited. Or a devotion such as Divine Mercy that was suppressed for a time (mainly because of a bad translation of her writings). In these instances though obedience was always involved and if God it truly behind something then it obviously won’t be suppressed.

Fr. Tucker also posts on the subject.

I have never put any stock in Medjugorje, although I know some fine people who do. To those who ask how good fruit can come from Medjugorje, if it’s a false apparition, I’d simply say that God can draw good from anything, so of course there will be good effects, too.

At any rate, Serge points to this bit of old news that I had never seen before. The Franciscans who are promoting the so-called apparitions at one point brought in a renegade "bishop" to administer Confirmation — and he turned out to be neither Catholic, nor a bishop, nor apparently even a valid priest. Here is the official announcement from the local bishop’s chancery, denouncing the act.

In the last century with many so-called apparitions that were later condemned there was almost always some fruit of conversion. We all have some of the Apostle Thomas in us and we seek signs to confirm our faith. There are those desiring faith and those seeking to strengthen theirs that will go to the sites of these apparitions who when exposed to the sacraments will truly have their faith strengthened and Fr. Tucker is exactly right when he says God will draw good out of anything.

PITTSBURGH – A man who says that rock, funk and jazz concerts held on his property are religious services has taken his case to federal court, claiming that county zoning officials violated his constitutional religious freedoms.

William Pritts says the concerts are an integral part of his Church of Universal Love and Music. He has been battling Fayette County’s zoning board over the concerts he began holding in 2002 on his 147-acre spread in Bullskin Township, about 35 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

In 2004, the state Commonwealth Court ruled that the county could fine Pritts for holding the concerts in violation of county zoning rules.

Last year, a county judge crafted a compromise that let Pritts hold two concerts in defiance of the 2004 ruling. But the judge also fined Pritts $2,500 for holding two other concerts and issued a moratorium on future concerts, which Pritts has since followed.

Pritts filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh on Friday in which he said that the zoning board is violating his freedoms of religion and association by denying a special-use permit for the concerts.

"A core belief of the Church of Universal Love and Music is that religious inspiration and community are advanced by the celebration of live music," Pritts said in the lawsuit.

County officials counter that Pritts never claimed to have a church until after they rejected his application for a permit to operate as a commercial recreation facility years ago.

Church use is permitted on Pritts’ land, but the zoning officials rejected Pritts’ application saying his activities were not those of a church or religious organization.

The concerts were held up to eight times each summer and some featured nationally known acts like funk star George Clinton. Pritts charged admission to hundreds of people who attended some of the multi-day events, though he said church members or other sponsors picked up the bill at some later concerts.

Neighbors complained of noise and traffic and officials worried about illegal drug use among concert-goers.

Dennis Nurkiewicz, a former zoning board member named in the lawsuit, said the board sought evidence of "dogma, religious practices and charitable" acts by Pritts group, but found none.

While it is apparent that this guy is gaming the system seeking evidence of dogma in modern Church will affect the zoning of lots of liberal churches.

The St. Benedict Center, a Benedictine ecumenical community serving Madison for the past 40 years, has ended its ties to the Roman Catholic Church.

Sister Mary David Walgenbach, 67, prioress, says the center will now function purely as an ecumenical community under its new name, Holy Wisdom Monastery.

She said the Sisters of St. Benedict petitioned the Vatican for dispensation from their vows as a Catholic religious order and that request was granted. The order will now be called the "Benedictine Women of Madison" and will continue to follow, generally, the monastic rule of St. Benedict.

Bishop Robert Morlino, of the Madison Catholic Diocese, approved the changes but requested the monastery no longer have Roman Catholic Mass celebrated at the center and that blessed Communion wafers no longer be "reserved" in the chapel.

"Such experimental endeavors can bear great fruit for the church, such as the monastery at Taize (France)," Morlino said in a letter to diocesan priests dated June 26. "But there are very few other success stories worldwide, and thus our prayers and good wishes are all the more important."

Sister Mary David said there are a number of reasons for the change, one of which is the order started accepting Protestant members several years ago.

"We didn’t want our non-Catholic sisters to have second-class status," she said. The Rev. Lynn Smith, a Presbyterian clergywoman, took her final vows to become a member of the order in 2004.

Morlino said Roman Catholic adults are free to participate in activities at the center, but added "participation in such activities would not be suitable for Catholic school religion classes, parish religious education classes for young people through the completion of high school and certainly not for catechumens and candidates in RCIA (religious study) programs."

Young people, Morlino warned, need to be indoctrinated in the basics of the Catholic faith before participating in ecumenical activities.

St. Benedict Center has, for 40 years, been virtually synonymous with ecumenical activities in the Madison area.

The local chapter of the Sisters of St. Benedict was organized in 1901 in Sioux City, Iowa. Sisters moved to Madison in 1953 to begin a Catholic girls’ school. When the school closed in 1966, the center became an ecumenical retreat.

"The response to our offer of hospitality has been overwhelmingly abundant," Sister Mary David said in a letter to fellow sisters. "While the 40 years have occasionally felt like desert experiences, far greater is the joy. Formerly, Christians of various churches praying together seemed innovative; this practice is common today. We continue to know ourselves as Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian and Presbyterian. While these labels sometimes separate us, we also know our unity as Christians who live, pray and work together in our world."

Looks to be a good thing that they are no longer affiliated with the Church since their affiliation didn’t appear to be all that deep in the first place. Any group of nuns willing to not have Mass available or a tabernacle to pray before our Lord in the Eucharist have truly lost their way on the path of false ecumenism.

Pope Maximus gives a blessing at Sunday mass in Cairo July 2, 2006. Pope Shenouda, the head of the Coptic Church in Egypt, has said that Pope Maximus is not a rightful Pope and has asked the Egyptian authorities to get involved. REUTERS/Nasser Nouri (EGYPT)

I guess this is like the Anglican church being concerned about schism.

More proof that dissenting Catholics also dissent from reason.

Why can’t I be a good Catholic and dissent? Apparently, being a dissenter and a good Catholic are mutually exclusive. Why can’t I be both? There is no “Thou shall not dissent” commandment. Yet today it appears that anyone who does not strictly follow or agree with the rules promulgated by Rome is considered to be a bad Catholic. And this to the point that Pope Benedict XVI is apparently saying good riddance—who needs them anyway—let them fall by the wayside: they are just weeds in the field.

How about if you love me keep my commandments and what Jesus told the Apostles "He who hears you hears Me." If you deny the nature of the Catholic Church and apostolic succession and the authority of the pope and the bishops in union with him, then there is really no point to in being Catholic at all. As for the weeds in the field well Jesus did say the tares would grow with the wheat, but to assign an attitude of good riddance to the Pope is to totally lack any knowledge of him at all. I can easily imagine these same people among the Israelites as Moses brings the Ten Commandments down from the mountain and complaining about rules and a patriarchical figure bringing an edict.

Why is questioning and asking about change deemed equal to heresy? It is akin to being against the war in Iraq and being labeled anti-American. This country was formed by a group of dissenters who believed strongly in freedom of speech and religion. Unquestioned, blind followership has had many a bad result historically—the Crusades and Hitler to name a few examples. Jesus Christ Himself was a dissenter. He objected to the behavior of those who observed the minutiae of the law, while ignoring its spirit. Saint Paul too was a dissenter amongst the apostles. Saint Paul made a strong distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law. Were Christ and Paul labeled as insurgents? Absolutely—and ultimately they were put to death for their beliefs.

Questioning is not equal to heresy. There are lots of items that we can question and ponder and mysteries beyond mysteries to delve further into. The problem is questioning that which has been settled. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same." If indeed you fall into this narrow guideline then heresy it is. They just like to throw this word around in cases where it doesn’t apply like letting priests getting married. Christ and Paul labeled as insurgents? Sorry they were not part of an armed uprising and tossing around the word insurgent in reference to Our Lord is ridiculous. The letter and spirit of the law are united ;the letter can’t imply one thing and be interpreted in a totally opposite way. It is not a choice between following the letter or the spirit, but that you should have an understanding of both of them as a union.

Requests to allow priests to marry or allow women to become priests have fallen on deaf ears in Rome. Bishop Chaput, as quoted in the New Yorker, said:
“
The lack of orthodoxy has already proven that it’s empty. So I can’t understand why people would want to move in that direction. I mean, all the things they’re pushing for have already been tried by mainline Protestant churches, which are shrinking in numbers. And these religious orders, where they’ve abandoned the tradition, there are no vocations, but they still talk like they’re the future. Why would they? You just have to open your eyes and see. If they have ears, they don’t hear. If they have eyes, they don’t see.”* Eighty-five seminarians hardly represent the triumph of orthodoxy. Be leery of the one who spouts contradictory statements in the face of facts.

Well large diocese with a paucity of vocations is not exactly the triumph of dissent either.

As for women in the priesthood, an objection is that all the apostles were men. Who was more inclusive than Christ? He spoke with women from other religions, ate with women, and had women in His entourage. After He rose from the dead, He first appeared to Mary of Magdala. Coincidence? I think not. This issue is about power.

Wow what a stunning argument. He ate and spoke with women so I guess every women at the dinner table were instantly ordained to the priesthood. He first appeared to Mary Magdalene so that too made her an apostle. So according to history exactly what see did she found? What bishops and priests assign their lineage to being ordained by her? Funny how we have some stories of all the other Apostles and for the most part their eventual martyrdom, but I guess the eviiillllll patriarchical Church once again managed to erase all traces of any of these traditions. Why is it they always say this is a power issue when really they only see the priesthood as a means to power and not to sacrifice. The true power within the Church is Christ himself and prayer when we unite ourselves to him by doing his will. Last I checked their was no gender requirement for doing that.

Despite Rome’s expressed support for the separation of church and state, it was a huge contributor to the reelection of President Bush by its decree, issued through bishops such as Chaput and Sheridan of Colorado, whereby they proclaimed those who voted for Senator John Kerry could be denied Communion. Instead of being proud that a Catholic could be elected to the presidency of the United States, whose humanistic values could influence how it treats and perceives humankind, the Catholic Church chose to throw its implicit support to a man whose religion was formed by a dissenter from Rome and who doesn’t “know the way.” This is the same man John Paul II tried to talk out of going to war with Iraq. Killing is killing whether it is by abortion, war, or the death penalty. Ironic is one word that comes to mind; expediency is another.

This part is just nutty in expressing a push by the Vatican for the reelection of President Bush. Last I checked Pope John Paul II’s reservations about the Iraq war were not exactly used in reelection campaign ads. Bishop Sheridan acted on his own and his conscience with no prompting’s from the Vatican. To think otherwise is to see know nothing conspiracy theories in every shadow. If President Bush had been Catholic would she be proud to see a Catholic in office? And if her definition of humanistic values include support for abortion and murder through embryonic stem-cell research then she had defined humanity down to what is convenient. It is funny how liberal Catholics always talk about shades of gray and make fun of those who see things in black and white moral terms and yet talk about abortion, war, and the death penalty as one lump of an indistinguishable moral lump.

The Catholic Church today may not want dissenters, but it has them. Being a dissenter should not, ipso facto, equal being a bad Catholic. Asking for change when it is necessary, valuable, and appropriate is different, yet Rome does not appear to see the difference.

Dissenting from truth carries no reward and should not be bragged about. There is plenty to dissent about today such as the secular humanists view of the world and the denial of the dignity of human persons. We should dissent from all that is not true and resist the winds of modernism that attempt to blow through Christ’s Church. But before you dissent from the Church it might be a good idea to first learn about the nature of the Church before spouting talking points as if they contained wisdom.

Canon law limits the Catholic priesthood to baptized men; Pope John Paul II reaffirmed this in a 1994 apostolic letter, "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" ("Priestly Ordination").

This is unbelievable considering that this line appeared in a story by the Catholic News Service. Canon law has nothing to do with this issue at all. The article also said:

A Swiss church leader said a lay Catholic theologian faces automatic excommunication after she claimed she was ordained to the priesthood June 24.

How in the world can you face automatic excommunication for an act already done? If an act occured such a penalty it would indeed be automatic upon the action that invokes it. Though in this case of simulating a sacrament would not be considered an act that incurs automatic excommunication. In the past these acts were usually soon followed by a formal decree of excommunication by their diocesan bishop.