Punditry

Interesting article in Catholic Insight on the Women’s “Ordination” Worldwide Conferences by a woman who has attended the conferences since 2001. Though she was only covering them and has no agreements with their agenda. Here is what she had to say about the Dublin Conference.

The event was held at University of Dublin, and the sight of a Crucifix, holy picture or statue that would usually identify a conference held in the Catholic tradition, was missing; instead there were four dominant altars to the elements of nature: earth, water, fire, and air. There was also a large linen-covered table with a display of loaves of bread, sheaves of wheat and grapes.

Approximately 300 people attended the conference, most of whom were older women. The largest group came from North America, many from the U.K. and Western Europe. The handful of men who attended were ex-priests, plus a few husbands of delegates. Sadly, there were also two priests in good standing with the diocese who took an active part in the liturgy and events of the conference. We were identifiable as orthodox Catholics, wearing small gold papal keys and pro-life lapel pins. This resulted in angry challenges from some participants, and media interest.

Opening ceremony

The conference was opened with a welcome hopping dance. The participants linked arms and danced in a chain around the hall chanting, “Earth my body, water my blood, fire my spirit….” This went on for some time before the talks began. During the two days of the conference, we sat through one speaker after another seriously distorting the teachings and doctrine of the Church and her history, and expressing anger and sometimes hatred toward the Pope and cardinals, especially Cardinal Ratzinger. We did not engage in their discussions however – until one of the speakers, John Wijngaards, a former priest and “theologian” from the Netherlands, and a frequent contributor to the London Tablet, stated that the Pope was a dictator worse than Hitler because Hitler only killed the body. When a statement of that nature is made against the Holy Father, silence on our part would have implied consent. When asked to retract his statement, he reluctantly did so, and that retraction was recorded on the conference tapes that were distributed.

The conference liturgy was dominated by New Age and occult practices; many of the delegates wore purple stoles, and some were dressed in full priests’ vestments. The most disturbing liturgical practice took place on the Sunday before the conference closed. It was listed as a “eucharist”. Our group left the area and returned just as they were finishing this celebration. The room was filled with incense, drums were beating, and each of the participants held an earthenware chalice and paten with the bread that had been displayed on the table, and the grape juice that had been used in the ritual. The two dissident priests from the diocese had taken part in the ceremony.

I would love to see video of a welcome hopping dance, though seeing all of these silly dissidents might make me hopping mad. The main thing about these events is that they show they are not made up of women who mostly accept the Catholic faith, but just disagree on this one topic. They are made up of women who have a deep rooted misunderstanding of what the Church is and their ecclesiology is taken more from Ms. Magazine than the Gospels.

I recommend reading the rest of the article as it describes the last conference in Ottawa and then ends with a summation and answers to common objections pertaining to the ability of the Church to ordain women.

Why are so many Catholic periodical that in some way identify themselves with our country are in fact dissident rags. For example America magazine, St. Anthony Messenger Press (americancatholic.org), and U.S. Catholic. It must be the idea of a democracy and radical individualism that strongly informs there vision of H20 Catholicism.

Alica said she was too tired to fisk this article so I will lend a hand.

Yet as much as John Paul II’s theology offers a real alternative to our sex-obsessed society, I have a mixed response to it. As a lifelong Catholic, a feminist, a wife, and a theologian, I find myself in agreement with some dimensions of it but with concerns about and even strong disagreements with others.

Well I have to admit that the article made me tired just reading it. I am only surprised that she didn’t list feminist before Catholic because that is how the article reads.

For John Paul II, God is always the bridegroom, never the bride; God is the one who acts, who invites. We, the brides, are the ones who respond. While there is a profound truth to this metaphor in that God is the one who issues us the invitation, I am uncomfortable with the gendered way that this comes across and its implications for real-life marriages, and indeed for society at large.

She never does explain why she is uncomfortable with this "gendered way", but the implication is of course that after understanding Pope John Paul’s II theology of the Body that we will force our wives to be submissive. Yeah I remember that surge of wife-beatings after Christopher West’s book came out.

The complementarity of the sexes. As John Paul II saw it, the differences between men’s and women’s bodies are not accidental, nor are they different merely for the sake of reproduction. Our bodies themselves reveal God’s intention for us. So to be male or to be female is, first, to be oriented to the other.

Second, maleness and femaleness constitute “essential” dimensions of the person that are not exchangeable. To be a woman is to be fundamentally “receptive” and open to the other. Thus John Paul II was quite critical of forms of feminism that, in his view, seek to make women “like men.”

There is what he called a “special genius” in womanhood that is oriented toward relationship and nurturing. And, because of the essential differences between men and women, only men can be ordained priests, as they represent Christ the bridegroom in relation to his bride, the church.

And of course after this we get the theology of Marlo Thomas Free to Be.. You & Me. Just hand Johnny a Barbie doll and he will grow up sensitive.

My response: No one could deny the obvious differences between the sexes. There are fundamental differences that exist at the genetic level and other differences that seem to accompany being male or female within a given society. Nature and culture are intertwined in complex ways, and a definitive answer as to which differences are “natural” and which are “cultural” is impossible.

Feminists have suggested that not all our differences are “given” to us. Some are learned. Opening up new opportunities to women, and to men as well, has profoundly changed the way we live our lives.

While many women find great fulfillment in bearing and raising children, some do not and instead find happiness in a single life or in a marriage without children. Some women find that they are better mothers or wives by combining their professional lives with their family lives. This shift in our understanding of gender has, by the same token, allowed men to develop stronger relationships with their children, as they are more free to take on nurturing roles.

I also noticed the packs of nurturing men. They go from busted marriage to busted marriage nurturing their children of different mothers. And just how does the fulfillment of childless marriages happen, well why of course the glory of contraception. Pill let us sing they praise. Estrogen in the highest.

My response: It is well-known that the overwhelming majority of U.S. Catholics do in fact use artificial contraception. But mere numbers cannot constitute a genuine theological response. This may mean that the overwhelming majority of Catholics are morally mistaken. Yet I think it is worth asking whether there is any wisdom in their experience.

Of course why even bring up the fact if you are going to point out that mere numbers can’t change theology? Well of course it must be the experience. We are all sinners so the wisdom of the experience of sin must somehow make us not sinners.

Does using contraceptives mean that the couple holds back an essential part of themselves from the other? I remember a conversation I had a few years ago with a friend who is the mother of three children. She and her husband had joyfully welcomed each child, and she could attest to the deep wonder and mystery that accompanied their conception. They had found Natural Family Planning very helpful in the process.

Yet she later found herself at a point in her life where, she told me, the thought of another child elicited panic. Neither she nor her husband felt that they could take on another child, and this fear was having a negative effect on their relationship with each other and with their children. After much thought and prayer, they decided that contraception was the best solution for them. Freedom from fear of conception has had a very positive impact on their relationship and their family life as a whole. I do not think that such an outcome would be associated with significant periods of abstinence.

The problem with these types of solutions is that they don’t fix the problem. Fear of the possibility of children is a sign of a psychological problem that contraception doesn’t cure. Just as the cure for unwanted children is wanting them, the fear of contraception must be addressed for the moral sickness that it is. Though I am rather skeptical of the story she relates, it is just too pat an illustration. Deep wonder and mystery changing to fear of conception.

This is the part where she tries to show how fair she is as a Catholic theologian.

Surely there are countless examples of couples using contraception purely as an avenue to their individual sexual pleasure, of women feeling less able to decline sex, of both men and women feeling pressured by the culture to have sex, of sex being reduced to “hooking up.” Such practices call for a strong response from people of faith.

…Beyond that, is abstaining regularly from shared sexual delight really what God wants of couples? Many couples have answered that question with a strong “No.”

Beyond that, is people regularly abstaining from sin what God wants of people? Many people have answered that question with a strong “No.”

The complex issues involved in a response to the church’s position on artificial contraception are too complex to treat in depth here, but I would simply note that there are thoughtful theological arguments that take a different position, that note the need for couples to follow their consciences on how best to plan their families, that suggest that the church’s longstanding opposition to contraception relies on an understanding of sexuality that looks to the experiences of men more than of women.

Then we get the boilerplate "complex issues", "thoughtful theological arguments", and "follow their conscience." If only Onan had told God that he was following his conscience and that this was a complex issue. Now I am sure you knew the next part was coming.

Indeed, in a church whose leaders are committed to complete abstinence from sexual union, a theology of the body that relies on abstinence as a central dimension of married sexuality is not surprising. This is not to say that celibates cannot understand sexuality, but rather that the lived experience of sexual activity also has a wisdom greatly worth hearing.

Celibate men dictating things to the rest of us. Run for the hills. Again with the lived experience generating wisdom. Didn’t we already get that one earlier?

I suggest that Catholics and others ought to listen respectfully to John Paul II’s message about the body and sexuality!

And then find reasons to ignore it like I have.

As someone whose vocation for 25 years has been to encourage the voices of young women and men, I would suggest that the Bible and the Christian tradition have other stories to tell as well: of the Canaanite woman who challenged Jesus’ reluctance to heal her daughter, of the early Christian leaders Phoebe and Prisca who were some of the first Christian missionaries, of the 12th-century abbess Hildegard of Bingen who was known for her preaching and even for admonishing the clergy for their failures—these women are hardly examples of pure receptivity.

This is the problem with critiques like this is that they confuse receptivity with passivity. To mischaracterized our late Pope’s theology in this way is just silly.

However, apart from this requirement, it is necessary to strive convincingly to ensure that the widest possible space is open to women in all areas of culture, economics, politics and ecclesial life itself, so that all human society is increasingly enriched by the gifts proper to masculinity and femininity.

2. In fact, woman has a genius all her own, which is vitally essential to both society and the Church. It is certainly not a question of comparing woman to man, since it is obvious that they have fundamental dimensions and values in common. However, in man and in woman these acquire different strengths, interests and emphases and it is this very diversity which becomes a source of enrichment. — Pope John Paul II

But it is no surprise that this theologian just does not get it. For example here is something else she has written.

Finally, the neuralgic issue of abortion. Yes, the church has advocated for the protection of these powerless and innocent ones. But when the church proclaims a theology of womanhood that identifies all women as mothers, whether physical or spiritual, that allows for moral ambiguity in decision-making that leads to death, as does the church’s teaching on just war, but does not see any ambiguity at all in women’s decisions over their future — since there is no ambiguity: all women are mothers!

I am not quite sure what the heck that means – but I am sure it translates to abortions are morally acceptable.

New blog Discalced Yooper via Unam Sanctum

Yesterday I learned that Oregon Press has answered the call from India’s struggling Catholic Church. While in the US and Europe vocations are low, in India vocations are extremely high. They are too high with many concerned that there won’t be a role for the laity left.

VOTF-India coordinator commented, "With all the priests available, how will women participate in the mass? It is difficult enough currently finding places for women to be RE directors and parish administrators. My goodness, we can’t even get parishes to allow Eucharistic Ministers because of the abundance of priests."

Fortunately help has found its way to India. Oregon Press has begun production on a missal specific to India. The missal will be loosely based on the US version. The melodies will be modified for Indian culture with one of the goals being to strongly appeal to women. Many parishes expect to start receiving copies at the beginning of Advent.

Ha! Plus we can send the theology departments from a bunch of our Catholic Universities and if they still have too many priests maybe they can ask Cardinal Mahony for an assist. He obviously knows the secret for keeping a seminary small and mostly free of men from the local population. They will in no time transform a harvest into a famine.

Via Amy Welborn is part of the 12 page document used in the recent visitation to seminaries.

¶"Is there a clear process for removing from the seminary faculty members who dissent from the authoritative teaching of the church or whose conduct does not provide good example to future priests?"

¶"Is the seminary free from the influences of New Age and eclectic spirituality?"

¶"Do the seminarians or faculty members have concerns about the moral life of those living in the institution? (This question must be answered)."

¶"Is there evidence of homosexuality in the seminary? (This question must be answered)."

Now if we change seminarians to religious I wonder how many religious orders here in the United States could bear the same scrutiny. Leaving beside the question of homosexuality I would easily surmise that many would get an F on the influences of New Age and eclectic spirituality part and many Catholic universities would flunk the part about removing those members who dissent from authoritative teachings of the Church. Or maybe they do have a process for those who dissent – they give them tenure.

Not that there will likely ever will be anything like a visitation on religious orders unless some religious orders themselves ever decide to clean up their act.

I just love headlines like "Catholic hierarchy taken to task"

HANOVER — Members of reform Catholic groups on Saturday called for a restructuring of the Roman Catholic Church, accusing the church hierarchy of being out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent.

That’s funny, especially since most members of VOTF are out of touch with what the Church teaches.

Among the proposed changes: a more open and inclusive church, including acceptance of women’s ordination and the elimination of clergy’s vows of celibacy and greater laity involvement.

And wanting women’s ordination proves my point. You mostly see these groups hawk married priests as a solution to shortage of priests, but never see them promoting prayer for vocations. Finally they always include the nebulous statement about laity involvement, but never what type of involvement they are talking about. I am aware of nothing as a layman stopping me from praying, getting involved with my parish or my diocese, helping the poor and doing works of mercy. It is a good thing St. Catherine of Siena wasn’t aware that the hierarchy was preventing lay involvement. What they really mean is that they want to be able to control what the Church teaches and influence it theologically. Every heresy in the Church was started by someone with Holy Orders. Groups like VOTF want to change that and allow the laity to start heresies also.

The Saturday morning meeting at Birchwood Manor in Whippany attracted nearly 150 people, members of organizations under the umbrella of the Catholic Organizations for Renewal, a coalition of Roman Catholic groups inspired by Vatican II.

It is obvious that these groups didn’t quite make under the umbrella of Vatican II since their theology is all wet.

While Vatican II formally closed in December 1965 and bishops professed to follow the council’s decrees, Catholic reformists said not enough, if anything, had been done.

"Vatican II is the most authentic teaching of the church as of today," said Theresa Padovano, of the Northern New Jersey Chapter of Voice of the Faithful, a Catholic lay group originally founded in response to the priest sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Boston.

The decrees of the Vatican II Council "called the church for (a) collegiate (structure), openness, and inclusiveness. Are we seeing this happen?"Padovano asked.

"We have to organize," said Leonard Swidler, representing the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church, an organization established in 1979 to foster greater community involvement in the decision-making process of the church.

Besides VOTF the meeting was attended by Call to Action and FutureChurch.

"We offer seven sacraments to men; six sacraments to women. How come?" asked Russ Ditzel of CORPUS, the National Association for an Inclusive Priesthood.

Oh no foiled by the argument for numeric comparison of the sacraments. Just too overwhelming of an argument to counter. Hey why can’t everybody be an ordained priest in the ministerial priesthood. Otherwise we are robbed of the max number of sacraments and of course we must also demand to get sick and be given the Sacrament of Healing. Plus all single people need to immediately get married in order to max out sacramental points.

Moreover, he said, there are some 25,000 married priests in the U.S. more than 100,000 worldwide who are willing but unable to serve due to their marital status. Meanwhile, 25 percent of U.S. parishes and nearly 50 percent worldwide do not have a resident priest.

Wow this is great news. I didn’t know that in the 25 years since the Pastoral Provision was approved that we had 25,000 former Episcopalian and other married Protestant clergy come into the Church. That is a thousand a year. There are only roughly 46,000 priests in the United States and I just had no idea that over half of them were married.

Well actually this number that Mary Ann McCarthy of FutureChuch quoted or just plain made up is silly beyond belief (kind of like FutureChurch). There is actually much less than a 100 married priests currently serving in the United States. She of course mentioned specifically married priests unable to serve but even if you count those that have been laicized and subsequently married this number is just nonsense.

"It’s about time that our church owes up to the fact that a significant part of our clergy are gay and (sexually) active," Ditzel said.

Well we are working on that problem – not giving in to it.

"We are going to have to change the structures of the church," Swidler said. "Otherwise, they won’t find it a home and they won’t be there anymore. And this is happening. Look at France. Look at Germany."

They even make their own counter-arguments for themselves. Pointing to the more progressive oriented Catholic Church in Germany and then complaining about no one going there only makes the case against these reform groups. Heterodoxy is a theological mule that doesnt’t engender offspring.

With the advent of the internet combined with a seemingly endless book queue (If I ever showed up missing Police would start checking book stores first) I don’t spend much time watching tv and when I do it is sans commercials courtesy of a DVR. I do look forward to SciFi channel’s line up on Friday nights (along with Monk). Normally the explanation of science in these shows are full of explanations that don’t bear close scrutiny. What do you expect though when answers to complex scientific and medical situations are almost always arrived at within the 42 minutes or so of time. Last night though as I watched my recording of Stargate Atlantis they added a bit of modern SF, that is embryonic stem-cell advocacy. One of the main characters Lt. Col. John Shephard had been bitten by the Wraith girl Ellia who had taken a retrovirus that basically turned her into variation a Iratus bug (what the Wraith had evolved from). John Shephard also begins the transformation and Dr. Beckett begins human embryonic stem-cell treatment. Now this part of the script was pretty close to reality and not SF, because the treatment didn’t work. The Doctor then decides that he actually needs embryonic stem-cells from the Iratus bug because "Embryonic stem-cells are the best." Wow, just great while wanting to just kick back and relax I have to be hit over the head with ESCR advocacy, though I guess I don’t know why I should be surprised. Though I guess ESCR is fitting for SF show or maybe it would be more fitting for fantasy .

Now I guess though that embryonic stem-cells taken from the Iratus bug would not be morally problematic considering that these are irrational creatures. On the mission to get some of these bugs from a cave two people were killed. Dr. Weir refused to risk anymore lives to save one person. But it seems to me that after allowing the use of human embryonic stem-cells to try to save one life what is the difference if some more are killed? Yeah I know it is only a television show but this is only a blog so I can rant if I want.

It is a rare thing to see Amy Welborn fisking something, but in this case also a thing of beauty and a must read. She takes to the retrospective column by National Catholic Reporter editor Arthur Jones called The Roman Imposition. She asks in response to it if their is a parallel universe that she is unaware of. She is close when NCR and their fawns have indeed created a parallel Catholicism more in tune with the bearded Spock universe than the real Catholic Church.

What I myself found so laughable was his term the "Wojtyla-Ratzinger continuum" and basically the impetus of the idea that neither Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI actually get Vatican II. So I guess we are suppose to go to the editor of a dissident rag I would ‘t grace the bottom of a parrot cage with for the Council’s correct understanding and implementation over two intellectual lights that were actually heavily involved in Vatican II

Amy takes a look at the what Arthur Jones calls the "reclericalized church." And by the way why is it the "We are Church" types always refer to the Church in only the lower case "church" as Jones has consistently done?

Another lie – a more serious and laughable one – that Jones presents here is that the Church is now rather radically re-clericalized as opposed to the flourishing of lay ministry post-Council, blah, blah, blah.

Really?

Once again, I’d ask. When it comes to public Catholicism, when it comes to the figures in this country who are representing Catholicism in the media, in books, in print…is that a scene overwhelmed by clerics? Actually – no. Who were the Catholic "experts" all over television in March and April? It was a very balanced crew, with, I’d say, a slight edge going to the laity. Look at the bestselling Catholic book titles. Who’s writing them? The ONLY priest who consistently appears on that list (aside from Benedict) is DEAD.

(Nouwen)

Who are the most popular and sought after speakers on the Catholic speaking circuit? With a couple of exceptions (Groeschel, Corapi) – they’re laity.

But when a group of laity establish the largest Catholic apologetics and evangelization organization in the U.S., NCR has had nothing but dist ain for them. I am referring to Catholic Answers of which NCR has gone after time and time again with such statements as "I have a question for Karl Keating: Why do we need you?" So what the truth of it is they would have no problem with clericalism just as long of the majority of clerics were in the McBrien or Gumbleton mode and they are all for the laity running things just as along as they have the same heterodox mind set as themselves. When it comes to some prominent lay authors they make cracks like:

Other theologians have confirmed to me that their graduate students are familiar with "conservative" authors, Catholic apologists like Scott Hahn, Mark Shea and Patrick Madrid, whose works their professors wouldn’t dream of reading.

And back to Arthur Jones:

The latest piety floating around the institution is that Catholicism is awaiting a new Francis. The church has had four decades of Francises and Clares worldwide and did everything it could to marginalize them.

Match the modern Francis and Clare’s Jesus-inspired activist poverty against the anachronistic fixation on today’s pomp; compare that to the gold threads and silks of the hierarchs’ floor length dresses. The divide and distance between Jesus’ call and the present-day institution couldn’t be clearer: The Vatican public function has succeeded the British royal family as the television pageant of choice.

And just who are these modern Frances and Clares who have been marginalized by the Church? Blessed Mother Teresa was surely one of them and just how was she marginalized? Amy mentions such groups as the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal and Opus Dei and I can think of others like the Missionaries of the Poor started by Father Richard HoLung. He is really referring to those who have followed the Gospel in helping the poor but have minimized or reduced the rest of the Gospel to modernistic pulp.

I also don’t remember St. Francis attacking Pope Innocent III for his ceremonial clothes. St. Francis in his obvious love of the poor also helped to foster devotions by creating the first Nativity and starting the Stations of the Cross. St. Francis was not just some activist against poverty, but something much fuller or more wonderful – somebody who loved God and neighbor and responded to the Gospel.

It is an old story that, while we may need somebody like Dominic to convert the heathen to Christianity, we are in even greater need of somebody like Francis, to convert the Christians to Christianity. –G.K. Chesterton (The Dumb Ox)

By the way congratulations to Amy Welborn for four years of blogging. She started on Sep 10, 2001 and you can see her first series of posts archived here.

Update: Speculative Catholic explores the meaning of the Wojtyla-Ratzinger continuum with good effect – very funny.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday that he will veto a bill that would allow gay marriages in California.

Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved a ballot initiative five years ago. Proposition 22 prevents California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"We cannot have a system where the people vote and the Legislature derails that vote," the governor’s press secretary, Margita Thompson, said in a statement. "Out of respect for the will of the people, the governor will veto (the bill)." [Source]

The idea of Arnold just "vetoing" something just seems tame. Perhaps terminating the bill with extreme prejudice or destroying its advancement would be better. Well I guess that answers the question about whether Gov. Schwarzenegger has any further political aspirations. Or maybe I should just be satisfied regardless of his motivation, especially considering a previous interview of his.

GS: You’re a Catholic, how do you reconcile your political positions on abortion, on gay rights, on the death penalty. There opposed to the positions of the Catholic Church – how do you reconcile that:

AS: That’s easy, I never had one sleepless night over it

Two panelists invited to attend an ethics conference at Carroll College next week have been removed from the list of participants, one of them — a representative of Planned Parenthood — by the school’s president.

Carroll College President Tom Trebon withdrew the school’s invitation to Sarah Fredrickson of Planned Parenthood of Montana last week, saying the college was fundamentally opposed to the health-care provider’s practices, which include abortion and birth control.

Trebon said Thursday he discussed the issue at length with members of Carroll’s faculty, staff, board members, and various community members before reaching his decision. He then met personally with Fredrickson and asked her to withdraw from the seminar.

"Planned Parenthood’s stance on certain issues, including abortion and reproductive rights, violate Carroll College’s mission as a Diocesan Catholic college," Trebon said Thursday. "I believe the presence of a representative of Planned Parenthood on a panel at a public gathering on campus would violate the college’s mission, mission statement, and commitment to Catholic values and ideals."

The school’s decision to withdraw Fredrickson’s invitation has been decried by some faculty members as censorship and an attempt to silence a controversial debate. E-mails circulating this week noted that a college should provide a platform to discuss societal issues no matter how contentious. Some feared Carroll’s reputation would suffer as a result of its decision. [Source]

The common dodge is invoked about censorship, though you can be sure that a panel discussing racism would balk at the idea of bringing the KKK in. As for Carroll’s reputation suffering, it would suffer worse in my opinion for allowing someone from Planned Parenthood to be involved. For them contentious issues are in the eye of the beholder and are acceptable just as long as it isn’t a subject they hold as contentious. After all it wasn’t some right wing censorship zealots that invented free speech zones on campuses.

Jensen said that Planned Parenthood promotes and provides women’s health care and family planning. The organization saw 21,000 patients last year in Helena, many of them living at the poverty level, Jensen said.

"We do so many wonderful things for so many people," Jensen said. "Carroll is an academic institution where all sides of an issue should be openly discussed. It’s unfortunate we’re not being included."

Oh isn’t abortion just so wonderful. The intentional murder of a human being just shouts out wonderfulness. The conference is called "Living Life at Death’s Doorway," and so many of death’s doorways lead to abortion clinics.

Gerald at The Cafeteria is Closed posts a link to St. Maximilian Kolbe Church. Being that it is a church in California I though it might prove fruitful doing a bit of sillyness-mining and it was just about as challenging as shooting fish in a barrel.

This is a snapshot of their home page. I rate it about -10 on the POD scale. I really wish my own parish’s site had an icon of a skater dude or is that Sk8er? Looking at the picture to the right of the ring-around-a-posy’ers based on the angle and the lack of proportional indicators I had at first thought they had installed a nice ramp for the Sk8er dude. My mistake, it is of course the Baptismal font.

Theologically I kind of like the idea of a cross shaped baptismal font, though not one that could pass as a plus key on a calculator. As Gerald noticed the sanctuary is of course crucifix free and contains an unadorned cross instead. And of course they have a labyrinth on the grounds. Their map of the church lets you click on numbers and popup windows appear with a picture and a description. Most of the furnishings were done by the same woodworker for the L.A. Cathedral. All the pieces are interesting looking and obviously well crafted, though they might have saved some money by shopping directly at Ikea. The Ambo reminds me of a old fashioned radiator made out of wood, but I guess the word is to be radiated and we are to be warmed by the readings.

There page on spirituality had this paragraph.

Spirituality is not exclusive to the Catholics. While Catholicism once took the position that it was the “one true faith”, the Second Vatican Council made it clear that Almighty God was much more open minded than that. The Council welcomed each person and faith that seeks the truth. In the mystery of God all creation is one. Christians believe that the fullness of God is revealed in the person of Jesus. Christian spirituality is Christ centered.

Well partly true and I almost fell off my chair when I read "that Almighty God was much more open minded than that." Now I know this is not fair but I will quote a text from an actual VII document.

We believe that this one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men. -DH

They said the the position of “one true faith” (notice their scare quotes) is was once held and that the council changed that and yet the Council also reaffirmed it. But like I said not fair to quote actual VII documents of which is guaranteed to get a deer-in-the-headlights look from most liturgists and Religious Ed teachers.

Ironically their spirituality page includes a link to the book "Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents" Their bookshelf also include a book by Father Anthony De Mello, SJ. The book is in a group of his latest works of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith signed by then-Cardinal Ratzinger said "one notices a progressive distancing from the essential contents of the Christian faith. In place of the revelation which has come in the person of Jesus Christ, he substitutes an intuition of God without form or image, to the point of speaking of God as a pure void." A reviewer at Amazon reviewed this specific book very succinctly "Awareness is watered-down yogiism, with a dose of EST & a little bit of Simon & Garfunkel thrown in."

This is always something that has amazed me in the recommendation section of so many Catholic web sites is that with the amazing, beautiful, and wonderful history of the Catholic Church’s spiritual tradition is that the only thing they can find is fast food akin to chicken nuggets where you have no idea what part of the chicken they might have come from.

Now to be fair their web site is no St. Joan of Arc dissent and all. Just "welcoming" Catholicism with mission and vision statements. Funny thing is I thought we already had a mission statement. It goes "Go out in to the whole world…" or something like that.

Update: L.A. Catholic points out that the parish’s website was designed by no other than L.A.’s openly ‘gay’ deacon, Eric Stoltz.

Last night, during the annual Labor Day gathering for the priests of the Archdiocese of Washington, Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick told them he had been notified that Pope Benedict XVI has decided the Cardinal should continue as Archbishop of Washington at this time. He was notified of the Pope’s decision by a letter from the Apostolic Nuncio. He likely will continue to serve as archbishop for another two or so years. As required under canon (Church) law, Cardinal McCarrick had offered his resignation to the Holy Father on his 75th birthday, July 7, 2005.

“I accept the Holy Father’s decision with gratitude and confidence,” Cardinal McCarrick said. “The confidence is based on the fact that I can count on the help of God for the grace to continue to serve the people of the Archdiocese whom the Lord loves so much. The gratitude comes from the privilege of working my brother bishops and priests, deacons and religious, whose generosity and zeal I have already experienced over the last four and a half years.” [Source]

I can’t exactly say I was pleased by the news, but then again my cathedra has wheels on it and sits front of a computer screen so who am I to say? Now I have had my fun with the Cardinal in the past, though I also took aim at mocking myself with my post on Episcopacy. I have been thinking that I don’t want to fall in the same trap that others have made at times. For example if you look at the extreme views and ridiculous stereotypes that so many held of then-Cardinal Ratzinger it made me wonder just how many of these same-style stereotypes that I held for some of our bishops and cardinals. This doesn’t mean that I will cease critiquing some of the decisions made, but I will at least try to do it without impugning anybody’s character. Now pardon me while I go get some tweezers to get some more of those annoying log out of my eye.

Tom has a favorable view of his Cardinal and maybe I can reduce his temptation to morose delectation at least in my case.