Punditry

I have tried to be a moderate voice. I abhor abortion, war, capital punishment, euthanasia, violence, and sexual and physical abuse of minors and of women. But I have also tried not to be so shrill that those involved in the above evils could not find the compassion of Jesus for the sinner and the deeply rooted desire to allow these people to come home — to Christ, to the church, to our community. — Bishop Robert N. Lynch

It is good to hear he is against euthanasia and violence against women. Though the family of Terri Schiavo might dispute this statement. After all he called her deliberate starvation "just a family dispute” and didn’t lift a finger including the one with his bishop’s ring on it to help her and even ordered his priests not to get involved. He does have a deeply rooted desire to allow these people to come home. Be instrumental in having your wife be starved to death and hey we open the doors of one of our churches so you can get married again. Repent first? – well that is just too shrill.

As Christians is is instrumental that we have compassion on those who do evil, but how about some compassion for the victim also?

One of the major problems with religion reporting is that there seems to be no skepticism when it comes to a story they want to report.
Recently it was the totally invented story of the Vatican’s campaign to reform Judas that spread through many news outlets from one source without any of them questioning the validity of the original source of it.
The new one is that Pope Benedict XVI asked for the Vatican tribunal to issue ‘rapid’ rulings on annulment requests at a recent speech to the Roman Rota.
Catholic Outsider
demonstrated from his translation from Italian that the Pope said no such thing.

The Guardian had reported.

Pope Benedict signalled a dramatic break with the past yesterday when he acknowledged the plight of divorcees who are banned from taking communion after remarriage and appealed to a Vatican tribunal to issue ‘rapid’ rulings on annulment requests.

It was the second time this week that the newly elected Pope has displayed strong liberal leanings, confounding his critics and the world’s Catholics and showing another side to his previously stern image, which has been unfavourably compared with his predecessor, John Paul II.

First off there is the silliness of the new encyclical having strong liberal leanings. I guess they would expect a conservative would issue God is hate. Why in the world is love defined along political lines? And what exactly was the stern image of John Paul II? It must be the fact that he was actually Catholic and taught Catholic truth.

In Rome yesterday he directly addressed a central tenet of Catholic doctrine that has caused distress to many followers of the church, which states that remarried divorcees are regarded as being in a permanent state of sin and cannot receive communion.

The 78-year-old pontiff, in a speech to the Roman Rota – the tribunal that decides annulments – acknowledged that there was ‘pastoral concern’ about the predicament of these Catholics.

He told the panel that its decisions should come quickly for the sake of the faithful. An annulment means that a marriage was invalid, leaving the faithful free to remarry and receive communion.

The Catholic Outsider says his speech actually said:

“The canonical process for a marriage annulment is essentially an instrument to define the truth about the conjugal relationship. Its objective, therefore, is not to uselessly complicate the life of the faithful and even less to exacerbate the conflict, but only to serve the truth (…) In fact, the objective of the process is the declaration of a truth from an impartial third party, after offering both parts equal opportunities to present their arguments and proofs within an adequate space for discussion.”

…“The principle of marriage indissolubility, reaffirmed by John Paul II with great strength in this same place, is an integral part of the Christian mystery. Unfortunately, today we can see that this truth is frequently forgotten in the conscience of Christians and people of good will.”

…“Pastoral sensibility must make us try to prevent marriage annulments in the process of admission for weddings and try to help the spouses solve possible problems and find the path to reconciliation.”

But somehow the press inserts rapid and calls this a "dramatic break with the past." Any good religion reporter would have immediately smelled a rat in a story like this and would have tried to have the report confirmed instead of just passing it along.

The following is not a parody.

Q In your last column, you said it wasn’t necessary to list hobbies (especially unpopular ones) on a resumé. I’m a 26-year-old, gay male thinking seriously about entering the Catholic priesthood. I’m sexually active, but only once a week, at a Saturday night club with a small group of friends. I think of that as my hobby.

Given the Catholic Church’s stance on gays in seminary, do I have to tell them about this? After all, even if I kept this up after ordination, I’d still be as celibate as most other priests.

A Celibacy is like pregnancy: either you are, or you aren’t. You aren’t, and more to the point aren’t prepared to be.

The Catholic Church does not consider its priests "employees;" the relationship, according to doctrine which you’d have to affirm, is more like marriage between the priest and the Church. So, yes, tell them. Whether other priests are celibate is not your concern; "everybody’s doing it" is a poor basis for ethical decisions. The fact that the Church’s stance on gays in the priesthood is morally wrong is also irrelevant. They’ve taken their position, you know what it is, so ‘fess up and let the pieces fall where they may.

I have another concern, though. Frankly, if you think of sexuality as a "hobby", you’re not likely priest material anyway. All the world’s major faiths consider sexual intimacy to be an expression of deep, long-lasting commitment and love. Many priests who violate vows of celibacy do so not simply because they are horny, but because they are deeply in love with another person, and consider that love a gift from God. Sex is not a game, and cannot be treated on a resumé or in life, as akin to playing crokinole or raising geraniums.

I think that both the questioner and answerer might have a promising career as writers for America magazine as evidenced by this editorial which is also not a parody.

There is a valid concern that the priesthood should not become exclusively or even predominantly the domain of gay men. In the same way that one would not want to see all or most priests coming from a particular ethnic group, or from a particular region of a country, one hopes that the priesthood reflects the great diversity of Catholics. Similarly, the concern that a man not so identify himself with the “so-called gay culture” that it obscures his fidelity to the church is a prudent one. And the document’s restatement of the need to remain faithful to the promise of celibacy is an important one for any candidate, no matter what his orientation.

Who knew that ethnicity was the same as an objectively disordered inclination? Though I think we can safely say that ethnicity is something we are born with. But I must say I am troubled by the ethnicphobic statement by America magazine.

It would be tragic, however, if this attempt by the Vatican to confront the sexual abuse crisis were the occasion for division within the church or prompted any increase in prejudice against gays and lesbians.

How often do we have to hear this canard about "the document™" which was started years before the abuse crisis was fully known. Though it appears the US bishops were sensitive to this interpretation and wanted the document to be delayed. If only the majority of bishops felt the same sensitivity towards the concerns of more faithful Catholics.

Oh by the way you can vote on America’s editorial at the bottom of the editorial. So far 57% agree with it and 43% disagree.

LONDON, Jan 25 (Reuters) – The Catholic Church’s leading dissident theologian praised Pope Benedict for his encyclical on love on Wednesday and asked for a second one showing the same kindness concerning birth control, divorce and other Christians.

Hans Kueng, who was banned from teaching Catholic theology in 1979, hailed his former university colleague for writing a first encyclical that was "solid theological fare" and "not a manifesto of cultural pessimism or restrictive sexual morality."

The Swiss theologian then urged the German-born Pontiff, the Vatican’s stern doctrinal watchdog for 23 years before his election last April, to be kinder to his Catholic critics and to Protestants offended by frank statements he has made about them.

"Joseph Ratzinger would be a great Pope if he drew courageous consequences for Church structures and legal decisions from his correct and important words about love," Kueng wrote in a statement, using the Pope’s real name.

Alongside the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the former Inquisition office that Ratzinger used to head, the Pope needed "Congregation of Love" to vet Vatican documents and ensure they are truly Christian in outlook, he suggested. [Source]

Hans Kueng is always up to giving me a good laugh. Congregation of Love is right up there with Dennis Kucinich wanting a Department of Peace. Though I would argue that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is already a congregation of love. If you love someone you tell them when they are doing something that endangers their eternal life or can lead others astray. What Kueng is really suggesting is a Congregation of Indifference where you can just do whatever you want and being its prefect would be the world’s easiest job.

By the way there were already encyclicals that displayed kindness towards birth control and other Christians. One was called Humanae Vitae and the other was Ut unum sint. It is always kind to tell the truth as best as you are able. None of the Seven Spiritual Works of Mercy say ignore sin.

DETROIT, Illinois, January 26, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, who is known as an activist for homosexuality in the Church, has handed in his resignation to the Vatican. Pope Benedict XVI is expected to announce the resignation today.

Bishop Gumbleton resisted mandatory retirement last year when he reached the age of 75, asking to continue on as Auxiliary Bishop to Detroit Cardinal Adam Maida. His request, given to the head of the Congregation for Bishops, Cardinal Giovanni Re, was denied.

”Some time ago he indicated that my request to defer my resignation was not acceptable,” Bishop Gumbleton said in an open letter to his parishioners at St. Leo’s Church. [Source]

I think the precise technical language the Vatican used was "don’t let the door hit you on the way out." Though the downside is that he will have even more time to devote to his heterodox endeavors. More articles for the NCReporter, more hobnobbing with the Call To Action types, the Rainbow Sash movement and anything else where orthodoxy is seen as a disorder.

Da Vinci Code Historical Seminar

Susan Vigilante at NRO writes a pretty funny article detailing her talk with people at the Minnesota public school and their depth of ignorance on the subject

I first saw mention of the National "Catholic" Reporters cover story on "women priests" at The Cafeteria is closed which had a picture of the cover. This story is now online. The subheadline it just so unbelievably stupid even by NCR standards "After ‘illicit but valid’ ceremony, they find ways to serve." This sounds like the MSM’s fake but accurate mantra. The article is about as one way as you can go with no pretence to it being Catholic at all. No references at all to Church teachings or any one reference to Ordination Sacerdotalis. This is an article whose only arguments are emotional and about feelings.

"Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful."

You just wonder what part of definitely held they don’t understand? This reminds me of a Envoy Magazine bit that included such encyclicals as:

Amen Amen Dico Vobis; Nihil Muliebrium Sacerdotum (Read My Lips: No Women Priests) Encyclical asking radical Catholic feminists what part of Pope John Paul the Great’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (on the reservation of holy orders to men alone) they don’t understand.

Rursus Dicam: Nullo Modo (I’ll Say It Again: No Way) Encyclical explaining the pope’s position on women priests even more plainly.
[You can read the whole piece courtersy of the Whapters]

Again NCR is a scandal which should have the name Catholic stripped from it by the bishop of their diocese. This was actually contemplated before quite a while ago.

One of the positive things about being a Catholic blogger is that I feel a push to read Church documents as soon as they come out. This is good thing for me considering that I have a have a tendency towards procrastination even for things that I want to do. As a result I read the first part of Deus Caritas Est during lunch and the second half later on. First off can anybody read a good sized encyclical right off the Vatican’s page. I mean black text on a mottled brown background is not the most eye pleasing contrast. First thing I did was to copy the text into a text editor and to also convert it to an mp3 with speech-to-text software to be able to go through it a second time later.

Update: I see Jimmy Akin did the same thing and has made it available as an MP3.
Additionally Maureen has also provides a human read version here.

It is a sad indictment and a testimony to disorder that Pope Benedict’s first encyclical is getting much less attention than the document on the admittance of homosexual’s in the seminary. The majority of news arguments give more attention to it being his first encyclical than to the contents. Of course this time they have no convenient hook to a hot button issue to be able to exploit. No media meat for "Pope attacks .." or "Pope slams" lead ins. Though some try have come up with some very creative interpretations to create an issue. For example in a overall good Time online article.

At Wednesday’s presentation of the encyclical, veteran Vatican correspondent Marco Tosatti asked Archbishop William Levada whether a reference to the Eucharist was a sign that Benedict was reconsidering Church policy that denies communion to divorced and remarried Catholics. Levada, who has Ratzinger’s old job as the Vatican’s top doctrinal official, politely told Tosatti he was reaching. "I hadn’t even considered it before your question," he said.

Well let us see what the Holy Father had to say in Deus Caritas Est on the Eucharist and marriage.

13. Jesus gave this act of oblation an enduring presence through his institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. He anticipated his death and resurrection by giving his disciples, in the bread and wine, his very self, his body and blood as the new manna (cf. Jn 6:31-33). The ancient world had dimly perceived that man’s real food—what truly nourishes him as man—is ultimately the Logos, eternal wisdom: this same Logos now truly becomes food for us—as love. The Eucharist draws us into Jesus’ act of self-oblation. More than just statically receiving the incarnate Logos, we enter into the very dynamic of his self-giving. The imagery of marriage between God and Israel is now realized in a way previously inconceivable: it had meant standing in God’s presence, but now it becomes union with God through sharing in Jesus’ self-gift, sharing in his body and blood. The sacramental “mysticism”, grounded in God’s condescension towards us, operates at a radically different level and lifts us to far greater heights than anything that any human mystical elevation could ever accomplish.

Yes you can easily see how reference to the Eucharist and of it’s sacramental union with God of course means that now divorced Catholics can receive Communion. Surely anybody can see that.

Though there does seem to be some general surprise by some in the media such as this one by Ruth Gledhill.

Every sentence, stop and comma speaks of orthodoxy. It is steeped in the tradition of the ancient Church. The Pope was former head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the body once known as the Inquisition. But this encyclical is not the work of an inquisitor. It is the work of a lover — a true lover of God.

Again they expected Torquemada, but what they got instead was the "sweet Christ on earth." Holy switcheroo Batman! Leave aside the inquisitor dig and the fact that the CDF whose lineage traces back to the Holy Office has a different mandate – she at least ends with words of absolute truth.

Legitimate criticism will come from some feminist circles. Although it is biblical, some women will not be happy at being referred to as rib-made helpmeets. His analysis of the role of the Church in bringing God’s love to fruition is also likely to be provoke accusations of implicit replacement theology.

Proof that ideological filters can easily distort any reading. Though it does make me laugh to think of the Pope as calling women "rib-made helpmeets." I mean I can hardly wait to the Pope doing a followup letter to the one JPII wrote in 1995 now called "Letter to rib-made helpmeets." I would also like to see a group Catholic women’s blog called "rib-made helpmeets." Now as to the Pope implying replacement theology – that is really a stretch. I can only guess that she though that replacement theology was the Church replacing the state – something that is antithetical to what the Pope is actually calling for. Those on a theocracy watch can stand down since the Pope called for the Church to help to form consciences in political life and to "help purify reason."

Now as to my own reading of the encyclical I will not give any commentary since it is being done better by others. What I can say is that not only should it be read, but meditated on – especially the first section. I do know that my first reading will not be my last.

Here is one very good summary from AsiaNews.

Get your Encyclical merchandise right here

Update: Carl Olson fisks a NYT piece on the encylical.

Michael Dubruiel gives the rest of the story concening Hans Kung "praising" the encyclical.

Here is a (slightly edited) text of a letter sent by Catholic columnist Barbara Kralis to Bishop Charles Grahmann of Dallas concerning a retreat to be given by Father Rohr, O.F.M. It also contains the text of something sorely missed blooger Fr. Sibley concerning Fr. Rohr.

Dawn Eden sent me a link to the text of a speech by the Rev John Jenkins the president of the University of Notre Dame. I had some hopes that the new president of Notre Dame would address both the performance of the Queer Film Festival and the Vagina Monologues since he has instituted other positive signs. I believe by the text of the speech that he has indeed done that – but please don’t hold me to that. This speech is long and drawn out and not as clear and precise as a similar statement of Father Brian J. Shanley, O.P., President of Providence College who unequivocally called off the play (I did love the irony of a college with the initials PC well not being PC).

So I will give a modified bravo to the Rev Jenkins even though his speech is not as straight forward as one might want. He does give some good examples to parallel why these events shouldn’t be held and he did shoot down one of the excuses previously offered. One of the excuses used before was that these events were sponsored by by a unit of the University and not by the University itself. He specifically addressed this and discounted it.

Childish Fancy and Adult Ignorance: Theism as Delusion and Psychosis
The Moral Legitimacy of Infanticide and Euthanasia
The Moral Acceptability and Strategic Value of a First-strike Nuclear Attack

If a conference were proposed at Notre Dame under one of these titles, and all speakers defended the position that the title suggests, and there was no one arguing persuasively for a position compatible with a Catholic position, I do not see how the university could sponsor such an event. Again, the problem would be that this Catholic institution would seem to be sponsoring an event that supports or appears to support a position clearly and egregiously contrary to the certain central values of Catholicism.

Again, let me be clear. The university certainly can host individual speakers who defend atheism, or infanticide, or euthanasia, or a first-strike nuclear attack. It is essential to a university that there be a variety of views expressed vigorously, even those contrary to deep values of Catholicism. We are richer, and the Catholic intellectual tradition is strengthened, if a variety of views are expressed and discussed. The difficulty is that these imagined conferences either are or at least appear to be, in their title and content (as I described it), one-sided presentations of Band perhaps advocacy for–positions that are clearly at odds with deep values of Catholicism. If they are sponsored by the university, or by one of its units or recognized organizations, their occurrence would suggest that the university sponsors not merely open discussion of controversial topics, but endorses or at least considers compatible with its values the particular positions that are being advanced.

This section starts out pretty good, but it ends with the idea that you can have a conference on any topic just as long as it is balanced. The Bishop’s statement last year said "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." The problem with so-called balanced presentations is that it makes it appear that there are two licit sides to some questions. There are a lot of topics where this is true, but not when it comes to some of the fundamental moral teachings of the Church. Having a conference on pedophilia with NAMBLA arguing one side would probably never happen, so why should it happen on other moral topics that truly have been defined by the Church?

Regardless though this speech is a step in the right direction and let us pray for him to hold steady. I would be interested in the reactions of this speech by my readers as to whether it was as I characterized it.