Punditry

Via Improvised comes this story

An appearance by Auxiliary Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton of Detroit has been moved from an atrium attached to Milwaukee’s cathedral to another site, reportedly because Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan did not want it to appear that the archdiocese endorsed the agendas of the Catholic reform group that is holding the event.
Advertisement

Lois Ahlhauser, a past president of Call to Action Wisconsin, and her husband, John, said they had arranged with Father Carl Last, rector of the Cathedral of St. John the Evangelist, for their group to hold its annual meeting from 9 a.m. to noon April 8, with Gumbleton as one of the speakers.

The Ahlhausers said that on March 6, after publicity for the meeting went out, Last told them that Dolan had informed him that the event could not be held in the cathedral, which serves as the archbishop’s parish, because Call to Action is a dissident group. The Ahlhausers then found a parish willing to provide space for the event, All Saints Church, 4051 N. 25th St.

As Dave notes this wouldn’t have happened under Archbishop Weakland. If Call to frAction was holding an event at a parish church the previous Archbishop would have invited them to the Cathedral. It also appears that the parish that will be holding the event will have Call to frAction preaching to the choir. Their bulletin contains things like:

Oh Great Spirit of our Ancestors,
I raise my pipe to you.
To your messengers the four winds, and
to Mother Earth who provides
for your children,

And their pastor left the Capuchin order in 1970 and later got married, then divorced, and became a priest in 2002.

DENVER, March 16, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In an uncommonly clear and straightforward statement, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Denver has publicly voiced the problem with homosexual adoption. James H. Mauck, President of Catholic Charities Denver, has stated that, "It is apparent that there are some who wish to compel Catholic Charities to place children with couples whose life choices run contrary to the values and beliefs of Catholic Charities and many other non-profit child placing agencies. This demand is imprudent and wrong."

…Despite all the attention, Mauk is one of the few Catholic leaders in the United States who has stated explicitly the Catholic stand regarding homosexual adoption. He said, "Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Denver has consistently held the position that children deserve to be placed into homes centered around a wife and mother, and a husband and father. Human history has amply shown that children thrive best when they grow in such a family."

Mauk concluded, "Given that the two parent family is society’s standard, and is also fundamental to our Christian service identity, any change in our practice is unwarranted, especially since many married couples are already seeking adoption and the number of infant children available for adoption has sharply declined because of the drop in relinquishments and the rise in abortions."

Well that is certainly refreshing considering the statements made by Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco. Especially compared to a statement made by Jeffrey Kaneb the new Chairman of CC in Boston.

To be clear, the board’s action is not a protest against the church and its teachings, nor is it a protest against the state and its nondiscrimination laws and regulations. Throughout the process of discussion, the board maintained an unwavering commitment to the agency’s nondiscrimination pledge, as well as an unwavering commitment to the welfare and safety of the children entrusted to the agency.

Unwavering commitment? That is a laugh considering that they had previously placed children with homosexual couples. So their claim of safety doesn’t apply to what then-Cardinal Ratzinger termed as violence.

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount

Happy St. Patrick’s Day to you all, though I won’t be eating Corned beef and cabbage. My traditions for this day growing up were more like pinching people who didn’t wear green or the occasional green milkshake at McDonalds. Of course growing up I had no idea who the heck St. Patrick’s was anyway. Multiculturalism I guess doesn’t extend to a former English slave who became a priest and then transformed Ireland from a Pagan culture. I mean obviously he wasn’t very PC.

Though at least now all of the news stories about Bishops providing dispensations to allow people in their flock to eat meat today will go away. The headlines in themselves were quite funny. My favorite misleading one was Bishops Bend Lenten Rule For St. Patrick’s Day. Other headlines were Churches won’t put kibosh on corned beef, Cardinal Says, ‘Let Them Eat Meat’, and Corned beef gets a dispensation. I would like to see the rite for Corned beef dispensation and exactly what did the bishop dispense Corned beef from? It is rather strange how much attention this story has gotten nationally from the press as GetReligion noted.

My own Bishop also provided a dispensation, but I will be keeping the normal Lenten abstinence. Mainly because I know my own weakness. I doubt if I would adequately substitute a better sacrifice or to abstain on another day of the week instead.

LONG BEACH, Calif. (BP)–Another step was taken toward the destruction of the Filipino Baptist Fellowship building March 13 when the Long Beach Redevelopment Agency Board voted 6-0 to condemn the church in order to build condominiums, despite testimonies from community members regarding the public good that flows from the religious institution.

“I had no illusions that we were going to stop the vote, but what was most discouraging yesterday was the utter lack of any evidence on why this was necessary to cure some blighted areas blocks away,” John Eastman, director of The Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence who is defending the church, told Baptist Press. “They didn’t bother to answer that. That was their legal obligation, and they went ahead and condemned a church anyway.”

During the hearing, the redevelopment agency voted to authorize the city attorney to begin condemnation proceedings, Eastman explained. The next step will be for the city attorney to file a complaint to condemn the property, which includes demonstrating that it meets the statutory requirements for condemnation.

Among the requirements is proof that the property seizure is necessary for public use — based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June 2005 regarding eminent domain — and Eastman said that proof would be rather easy to show since a church is tax-exempt and a housing project would bring in more revenue for the city.

Of course this is to be expected based on the disastrous Kelo decision. But I would have thought that eminent domain wouldn’t apply to churches. Perhaps Immanent Domain would? Though then again I can think of an area by the Hollywood Freeway in L. A. that would be great for condominiums that currently is occupied by an unsightly structure, I mean church.

Father Thomas Williams has an article at NRO on the statement by 55 Catholic Democrats:

More “progressive” Catholics have often had recourse to the image of “big tent” Catholicism, appealing for a broader acceptance of heterodox opinions within the Church. The image is apt, in that Catholicism does embrace a rich and varied array of opinions, emphases, schools of thought, theologies, spiritualities, and apostolates. At the same time, even the most enormous of tents has its boundaries, beyond which it is possible to stray. The statement makes a feeble attempt at defending the claim that the “big tent” of Catholicism can cover abortion.

That is a tough case to make. Just as you don’t have the polytheistic wing of Islam or the seal-clubbing wing of Greenpeace, you don’t have the pro-abortion wing of the Catholic Church. Certain non-negotiable moral standards define Catholicism just as surely as doctrinal beliefs do. We all advocate a big tent, but it can stretch only so far until it rips asunder.

Now that is a great analogy "the seal-clubbing wing of Greenpeace." You instantly know it is ridiculous, if only this same reaction would be understood by all when the pro-abortion wing of the Catholic Church was mentioned.

To justify their position, the authors of the statement appeal to the so-called “primacy of conscience.” Yet conscience is not a pass to excuse wrongdoing. Would it make any difference if a serial killer claimed he was following his conscience when he murdered his victims? Even if the politicians are following their conscience, Catholic morality makes an important distinction between good conscience and bad conscience, and a conscience that sees nothing wrong with killing the innocent falls decidedly in the second category. Our first duty concerning conscience is to form it according to the moral law, and especially for a Catholic, no doubt can exist regarding the objective evil of abortion.

True, the statement acknowledges the “undesirability” of abortion, and the signers hasten to assure their constituencies that they do not “celebrate its practice.” That they do not “celebrate” the greatest social ill of our time may prove cold comfort to those who spend much of their free time actively campaigning for its abolition. And as regards its “undesirability,” this poorly chosen term will likely provoke only indignation. Hangnails are undesirable; under-seasoned salads are undesirable; lines at the cash register are undesirable. Abortion is repugnant and evil. Can you imagine a politician stepping forward and (with much hand-wringing) asserting that he finds rape “undesirable” and that he does not “celebrate” its practice, but that he will not stop defending legislation that permits it? Such a politician would rightly be ridden out of town on a rail.

I would like to make a counterproposal. Rather than asking Catholicism to embrace its antithesis, why not forge a true “big tent” Democratic party where all are welcome, even those who are pro-life? Better yet, why not return to that noble strain of politics that prided itself on its defence of the most vulnerable members of society? Why not forego the precious support of abortion power-brokers and rediscover the roots of the Democratic party? No number of “historic” statements could match the impact of a lived commitment to true social justice.

He also mentions how even a big tent has a boundary that you can go beyond. Of course the big tent analogy has not just been used by the Democrat, but as an excuse by Moloch loving Republicans. The tents they refer to are a three ringed circus with performers from NARAL, PP, and EMILY’s List.

There is another good article at Marcator.net by Michael Cook on the subject that starts with:

One politician standing firm on his conscience is a miracle. Fifty-five standing firm on their consciences is a publicity stunt. That may seem a bit harsh, but it is the only explanation for why 55 Catholic Democrats in the US House of Representatives have issued what they described as an historic statement of principles.

I ran across this news story about an effort by Jesuit Media Initiatives for a new podcast called ‘Pray-As-You-Go.’ This seems to be an efort by the all too common civilian clothes wearing Jesuits with the normal emphasis. Where only at the end of five pages of a a vision & mission statement does it finally gets around to the Catholic faith.

Now I am not a big fan of vision and mission statements anyway. They usually have little vision and miss the mission. Though I always thought a good short one for any Catholic institution that wanted one was "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation."

The podcast itself is daily and starts with bells followed by some music and then scripture with questions for reflection and a final reflection. The one I listened to was okay though the opening music went on for about five minutes out of a 12 minute podcast. These might be a good prayer podcast, though I think there are some better ones.

Regardless they had a section on the site for body exercises that had an mp3 file for it. Maybe it it just me, but I was laughing all through it. It has a sonorous British voice narrating it with background music It is oh so serious and started with.

Body

Be aware of the crown of your head, feel it, sense it.
Don’t just think about it, don’t think with it.

Not thinking with your head leads to silliness like this. There is also one for Breathing exercises.

Breath, just breath.
Not particularly deep, not particularly shallow
Breath through the nostrils if you can.
Or the mouth if you can’t (good tip)

Whatever you do keep breathing (another good tip).

Wow that could be really dangerous if you don’t here the advice about keeping breathing. These two components are usually part of the centering prayer fad. Something that a reliable source such as Fr. Dubay doesn’t encourage. Not that part of it can’t be useful, but that its emphasis is often misused. Of course doing things like synchronizing something like the Jesus prayer or other prayer to your breathing are time tested and very good ways to meditate. The problem is much of these techniques are more akin to Buddhist practice of just emptying yourself without going to the next step of opening yourself to God’s still small voice.

But anyway take a listen to the referenced songs and see if you find them unintentionally funny or whether I am just plain wrong.

Kudos to Bishop Slattery for having the (unfortunately) unique suggestion that clergy, liturgists and musicians to review Sacrosanctum Concilium. Actually reading Sacrosanctum Concilium and other document pertaining to liturgy too often is like reading a book and then watching a movie based on the book. You have some familiarity with the movie, but are usually disappointed by what was added or left out. The same things goes for reading liturgical documents and then going to a typical parish Mass. To many Masses are like the the SciFi Channel’s adaptation of the Earthsea series. If you didn’t see it it was horrid, but it proves a good example of the dissonance between a book and a movie. The same dissonance between liturgical documents and the Mass that too frequently happens.

[Via RC at Catholic Light]

In other news Cardinal Keeler, Cardinal McCarrick and Bishop DiMarzio issued a statement in response to the one written by the 55 Democrat politicians. The statement while being diplomatic was also not watered down.

We need to do more to persuade all people that human life is precious and human dignity must be defended. This requires more effective dialogue and engagement with all public officials, especially Catholic public officials. We welcome conversation initiated by political leaders themselves.

Therefore, we welcome the Representatives’ recognition that Catholics in public life must act seriously and responsibly on many important moral issues. Our faith has an integral unity that calls Catholics to defend human life and human dignity whenever they are threatened. A priority for the poor, the protection of family life, the pursuit of justice and the promotion of peace are fundamental priorities of the Catholic moral tradition which cannot be ignored or neglected. We encourage and will continue to work with those in both parties who seek to act on these essential principles in defense of the poor and vulnerable.

At the same time, we also need to reaffirm the Catholic Church’s constant teaching that abortion is a grave violation of the most fundamental human right – the right to life that is inherent in all human beings, and that grounds every other right we possess. Pope John Paul II’s apostolic exhortation on the vocation and mission of the laity, Christifideles Laici, which the Representatives’ statement cites, declares:
The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, 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 for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination…. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor (# 38).

While it is always necessary to work to reduce the number of abortions by providing alternatives and help to vulnerable parents and children, Catholic teaching calls all Catholics to work actively to restrain, restrict and bring to an end the destruction of unborn human life.

And while I am praising the efforts of some Bishops here is another story where Bishop Finn called a stop to the practice in his diocese of emptying the Holy Water fonts at the start of lent instead of on Holy Thursday.

This practice is just more evidence of the attitude of liturgists that they just have to change something. Now you would think that if a liturgist really wanted to introduce a penitential action that instead of removing the Holy Water or placing stones in the font they would replace it with a light acid or perhaps tacks. Another silly practice common during this time is for parishes to cover their statues and images at the start of Lent vice Holy Thursday. A parish I go to because they have 24 hour Eucharistic Adoration has already done this way before Passiontide. It was really distracting considering that the way they covered the statues of St. Joseph and the Virgin Mary with a somewhat fitted clot is that it now appears there are two seven foot tall purple condoms in the adoration chapel. I am almost surprised that they didn’t cover up the Stations of the Cross also. This would be ridiculous, but it is fitting with the practice of covering up other religious statues and art. Usually visiting other parishes only makes me more thankful for the parish we normally attend where liturgical abuses are only theoretical.

MONTREAL – Quebec’s Catholic bishops Friday downplayed a recent public outburst of 19 priests against the Vatican’s stand on homosexuality, but called for an internal debate on the matter.

The Quebec Conference of Catholic Bishops held this week precedes an upcoming visit of Canadian bishops to the Vatican in May, where the issue will be among the "principal aspects" of discussions with Pope Benedict XVI.

The bishops said they regretted that dissident priests had made their views public through the media last month, but agreed it provoked needed dialogue within the church on a variety of topics, including gay marriage.

The Feb. 26 letter was a rare case of public dissent within Quebec’s Catholic church. In it, the priests criticized the Vatican for opposing gay marriage and forbidding homosexuals from the priesthood. They suggested the church needed to evolve, rather than have "the last word on the mysteries of political, social, family and sexual life."

The bishops issued a news release Thursday, calling the letter "food for thought."

"We regret, however, that we have been brought into this by force of circumstance; it is a confrontational dynamic that threats to harden positions," the bishops said.

The bishops said their coming meeting with the pope would explore various topics about Quebec society, including "ethical questions such as civil union and the definition of marriage."

I really wish that when the media references a letter or other document that they actually link to the information directly. Maybe one day we may even get to see the full context of an interview which they parse out as they please. Though I doubt this will be anytime soon. Giving real access to information would reduce their gatekeeper role where they dole out data as it suits them with the right amount of spin applied.

I suspect that is what happened in this case. The original document, which is in French, is here. I viewed it via bablefish translation. Now I know the automated translation is not the best, but I doubt that it totally dropped homosexual marriage or the "ethical questions such as civil union and the definition of marriage." If a French reader could look at the document and let me know if this is a case mistranslation or not I would greatly appreciate it. It also looks like the food for thought was directed at the media outcry and not the contents of the original letter from the dissident priests. Though I did like the description "a recent public outburst" since I think this frames the letter quite accurately.

This is an interesting news day as regards to Catholic Charities and allowing adoptions to homosexual couples. Lots of information coming via Domenico Bettinelli.

First the Boston Globe contacted Maurice Healy a spokesman for the Archdiocese of San Francisco about if Catholic Charities there was going to continue to allow adoptions to homosexual couples in light of what was going on with Catholic Charities in Boston. They in turn emailed their former bishop and now head of the CDF about this. Cardinal-designate Levada then replied:

In his e-mail, Levada acknowledged that he had been told by Brian Cahill, executive director of Catholic Charities in San Francisco, that three ”difficult to place" children were adopted by gay parents there. Levada said those placements involved ”prudential judgments" about the needs of the children, church teachings, and the mission of the agency.

However, in the e-mail he said a 2003 Vatican document makes clear that ”Catholic agencies should not place children for adoption in homosexual households."

”The reasons given in the document, as well as the potential scandal for the faithful should an archdiocesan agency act contrary to the clear teaching of the church’s magisterium, require that a Catholic bishop follow this clear guidance from the Holy See in his oversight of Catholic diocesan agencies," he wrote.

The next part is pretty funny.

Hours before receiving Levada’s e-mail, in an interview with the Globe, the spokesman for the San Francisco Archdiocese had defended the practice of allowing gay adoptions.

In response to the email you get the reply you would expect.

”We’ll be reviewing it," said Maurice Healy, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

Believe it or not that is a step in the right direction. Because I think when this document came out in 2003 from the CDF on the subject the reply then was "We’ll be ignoring it."

Which brings us to the next story.

BOSTON –The Boston Archdiocese’s Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because state law allows gays and lesbians to adopt children.

Now the official statement of Catholic Charities in Boston has about as much bite as a man who has misplaced hid dentures, but hey when it comes to the right decision we will take what is given.

…But now, we have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. In spite of much effort and analysis, Catholic Charities of Boston finds that it cannot reconcile the teaching of the Church, which guides our work, and the statutes and regulations of the Commonwealth. The issue is adoption to same-sex couples, and we realize that for many it is a sensitive, deeply felt issue of conscience.

Now? Of course Catholic Charities there has been providing adoptions to same-sex couples for some time so exactly what does that have to do with the new state law? The new law really only asks them to continue what they were already doing. No this is just a pretext for them because they were hopefully being pressured by the diocese to stop this practice. The instruction from the CDF came out three years ago. This is nothing new and the questions raised on this subject were authoritatively answered by then Cardinal Ratzinger. But with seven people resigning from the board of Catholic Charities last week maybe the heterodoxy load on the board has shifted.

Dom thinks that the statement "lacks enthusiasm for the Gospel" and I am inclined to agree. Now that Archbishop Sean O’Malley has also issued a statement and it looks like that criticism still applies (as Dom also noted). Another teaching moment wasted. With all of the attention that will be focused on this news it would have been great to see a statement that accurately advanced the Catholic teaching in regards to this subject. We will soon be bombarded with even more stories calling the Church homophobic where the Church’s position will be mischaracterized, so it would be nice to see it accurately stated at least one time in the coming media storm.

Regardless the right action is now happening in Boston. Hopefully it will result in the legislature finally granting a religious exemption to this law. But this is the exact stance that must be done time and time again with the state orders that we must cooperate with evil. There will be only more such cases as time advances and the culture regresses.

HONG KONG (AP) – A leader of China’s state-controlled Catholic church said Friday he suspected the Vatican appointed an anti-communist Hong Kong bishop to be cardinal because the pope wanted to play a role in the Communist Party’s demise.

Liu Bainian, vice chairman of the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, noted that the Roman Catholic Church was active in toppling communism in Poland in 1989. Liu suggested that Hong Kong Bishop Joseph Zen, whose appointment to cardinal was announced last month, would be part of a similar strategy in China.

"Why would you appoint someone who doesn’t support communism as a cardinal?" Liu said in an interview in Beijing with Hong Kong Cable TV.

"Is it like Poland? Didn’t the church play a big role in Poland?" Liu asked.

Liu argued that socialism and Christianity were compatible.

"China’s socialist system comes from God. We should all protect it and obey it. This is what the Bible tells us to do," he said.

I wonder what translation that is in? Pehaps the RSV-CE Revised Standard Version – China Edition with foot notes by Moa Tse Tung. Though if only this guy’s paranoia was accurate and that this appointment would set into motion what the election of Pope John Paul II had on China.