Punditry

A lawyer for polygamous former Hildale police officer Rodney Holm urged the Utah Supreme Court on Thursday to lift a ban on plural marriage, and justices responded with sharp questions about whether the ban is constitutional.

Attorney Rodney Parker argued his client has a right not only to believe in a religious tenet of polygamy but also to practice his belief in a meaningful way.

"The ban on plural marriage affects so many fundamental rights," he said, contending that tens of thousands of Utahns are forced to hide their relationships for fear of prosecution.
Parker asked the high court to decriminalize polygamy, allowing its adherents to have a legal marriage with a first wife, then enter into religious unions with other women as a way to reach the highest degree of heaven. [Source]

Remember the outcry over when Sen. Rick Santorum said:

And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society?

One thing interesting here is that polygamists have learned from same-sex marriage proponents in the language they use. They almost describe bigamists as having to be in a closet and that society is forcing them to hide their relationships. The next tactic is to not to ask that polygamy be legally recognized, but instead that it be decriminalized and additional wives allowed as religious unions. Same-sex marriage advocates did the same thing by first promoting same-sex unions as a stepping stone to publicly endorsed same-sex marriage.

One of my favorite puns as a child is the one that describes a bigamist as someone who wants to have their Kate and Edith too.

FUTURE popes will have to retire at a fixed age, under secret plans being discussed by Catholic cardinals, ending a tradition of service until death that has lasted 2000 years.

According to senior church sources, cardinals have discussed among themselves the need to choose a future pontiff who is open to a retirement age, probably 80.

They do not want a repeat of the past few years, when the ill-health of Pope John Paul II, now 84, has forced him to take an increasingly light role in directing the church, responsible for the spiritual welfare of 1.1 billion believers.

The church has in effect been run by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the ultra-conservative head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But Cardinal Ratzinger, whose nickname is John Paul III, is considered too old, at 77, to succeed him.

Also at the heart of every decision is Joaquin Navarro-Valls, the celibate Opus Dei member and qualified doctor who is the Pope’s media officer and most trusted adviser [Source].

Religious reporting is notoriously unreliable and this article is no exception. The headline for this story is just plain misleading "Church calls halt to popes for life." Some alleged source gives away secret plans that future popes "will have to retire" is just mistaken. A new Pope could decide to retire at a fixed aged, but any decision he made would not be binding on any future popes. This article is just plain silly with Opus Dei references and saying that Cardinal Ratzinger is actually pulling all the strings. I have never heard of Cardinal Ratzinger being nick named John Paul III. I wonder if their is any veracity in this or if this is just another piece of bad reporting by agenda journalists.

From a letter from Colorado’s bishops written to three state lawmakers in reference to a state bill mandating that hospitals make available and to give "emergency contraception" .

"We recognize that there are those who differ in their beliefs regarding the stage at which human life begins and is deserving of recognition and protection. But the state has long recognized and respected the rights of both individual physicians and hospitals to practice medicine that is consistent with their belief regarding the value of human life at all stages from the moment of conception. HB 1042 would erode those protections by mandating that a hospital provide a treatment regardless of the potential effect on a newly formed life.

"If enacted, HB 1042 would have the dubious distinction of being the first law in Colorado to require a Catholic entity to actively violate its own teachings. . . . "

A letter from Colorado’s three highest-ranking Catholics angered a House Democrat on Monday who said she resented "being told how to be a good Catholic."

The letter was read aloud on the House floor by Rep. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs.

Rep. Fran Coleman, a Denver Democrat who said she was raped a few years ago, publicly admonished the Colorado Catholic Conference for its opposition to a bill that would require hospitals to give emergency contraception information to sexual assault victims.

The conference represents Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, Pueblo Bishop Arthur Tafoya and Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan.

"I absolutely resent the Catholic Church preaching to me because I represent people of all faiths," a red-faced Coleman said during debate on the House floor. "I question their ability to continue to be in a tax-exempt status. We don’t need to be preached or read to."

Despite opposition by anti-abortion Republicans, House Bill 1042 won final passage 46-19 and now moves to the Senate, where it is expected to pass. Gov. Bill Owens, who is Catholic, would not comment Monday on his position on the bill. [Source]

It seems that there must be Catholic politician factory out there that is creating boiler-plate Catholic politicians. Whatever they are using to inject into these politician-molds needs to have its formula changed since it seems to be missing common sense and basic catechesis. We have heard these same laughable comments before that displays a total ignorance of the role of Bishops. John Kerry previously spouted the inane line about having to represent multiple faiths. To chastise a bishop for preaching is like chastising a carpenter for using wood to build furniture. To say "we don’t need to be preached to" is to deny that we are sinners and of course we need to be properly preached to.

One thing the article does not mention is that the Church teaches that for those who are raped that measures can be taken to prevent the rapist’s sperm from reaching an egg. Though once an egg is fertilized no attempt must be made that would harm that child. Father Pavone of Priest for Life says something I think is very relevant on this subject. "Rape is wrong because it is a violent act against an innocent person, abortion is wrong because it is a violent act against an innocent person.

From the Rainbow Sash Movement site. [Via Free Republic]

Royal Oak, Michigan, 26 January 2005—— A Roman Catholic nun who has dedicated her work to creating communication and dialog within the church on the subject of homosexuality and acceptance of gays and lesbians has been barred from a Royal Oak Catholic Church facility, along with the group that had invited her and a local gay rights organization. Sister Jeannine Gramick, who will be in Metro Detroit for a weekend screening of a documentary based on her work, was to be the guest at a reception in her honor hosted by Call to Action of Michigan, a progressive Catholic social action organization. The film, In Good Conscience, is on the roster of films being presented at the Reel Pride Michigan Gay & Lesbian Film Festival presented by Triangle Foundation. Barbara Rick, the film’s producer/director will appear with Sister Gramick on the program. St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Royal Oak offered its facilities to Call to Action several weeks ago. Early this week when reception organizers visited the church to make final arrangements they were informed that an official from the Archdiocese, Bishop Walter Hurley, had issued the order banning Sister Gramick and the event from the building. “Disappointed and uncalled for,” said Sister Gramick when informed of the Archdiocese action. “Decisions like that are what makes the Church look foolish in the eyes of the world. It’s embarrassing to me as a Catholic that the leaders of my Church would censor,” she concluded. Bravo for fairly new Bishop Hurley for preventing Sister Gramick from speaking and for this stopping this embarrassment of a film to be shown in a Catholic Church. Sister Gramick was "permanently barred from any pastoral work regarding homosexual persons." by the The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith back in 1998 after years of dispute when she and Father Nugent refused to sign statements supporting the Church’s teachings on homosexual acts. Next time maybe they will stop Call to Action from meeting at the church there.

Miami, Jan. 26 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) – On Tuesday, a group of Florida same-sex marriage proponents announced they would abandon their challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA"). Eight lawsuits were filed last year in Florida seeking to establish same-sex marriage.

Three of those lawsuits challenged the constitutionality of DOMA. One of the cases was Wilson v. Ake , filed by a lesbian couple seeking to have Florida recognize the same-sex "marriage" performed in Massachusetts, where the courts have declared the practice to be legal. Last week, federal District Court Judge James Moody upheld the constitutionality of DOMA in that case, stating, "Adopting plaintiffs’ rigid and literal interpretation of the Full Faith And Credit clause would create a license for a single state to create national policy."

Mathew Staver of the public-interest law firm Liberty Counsel said, "Today’s abandonment of the challenges to DOMA is a victory for traditional marriage. While the legal strategy has shifted, the goal of establishing same-sex marriage remains the same. Apparently, the legal strategy will now focus on establishing same-sex marriage state by state." [Source]

Well that is good news for now. Of course this group or another one will continue to judge shop in another state until they can find a more sympathetic judge. In this day and age they were just unlucky to have gotten some judges who actually follow the constitution.

Sometimes it is difficult to come to come up with a charitable explanation for something, either that or my charitable imagination is cynically tainted.

Previously Cardinal Theodore McCarrick mischaracterized a letter given him by Cardinal Ratzinger in relation to giving Communion to public pro-abortion supporters. Jamie Blosser previously looked at the comparison between what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote and what Cardinal McCarrick reported.

TM: "Having said this, Cardinal Ratzinger speaks about WHAT constitutes ‘manifest grave sin’ and ‘obstinate persistence’ in public life, stating that consistently campaigning for and voting for permissive laws on abortion and euthanasia could meet these criteria."

JR: "Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, etc . . ."

Now we have another similar situation along the same topic. In this case it was regards to the homosexual rights group called Rainbow Sash who do not hold to the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts and were basically daring Bishops to not give them Communion as a publicity ploy.

ROME (CNS) — Archbishop Harry J. Flynn of Minneapolis-St. Paul spoke to Vatican officials about gay rights proponents wearing rainbow sashes to Mass and receiving Communion.

Unlike some other bishops across the country, Archbishop Flynn has allowed Communion to be given to members of the group known as Rainbow Sash. That has prompted criticism by some Catholics in his archdiocese, and at one Mass a group of lay people tried to block the aisles to prevent sash-wearers from receiving Communion.

Archbishop Flynn said he discussed the issue in a private meeting in early December with Cardinal Francis Arinze, head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.

He said Cardinal Arinze agreed that it was a complex problem requiring clear teaching and pastoral sensitivity. The archbishop said he was not asked to change his policy.

"I got the clear understanding that this is recognized as a very complex pastoral issue which must constantly be looked at in all its ramifications," Archbishop Flynn said in an interview in mid-December [Source]

This sounded rather doubtful when this was reported on Dec 14, 2004. Catholic columnist Barbara Kralis must have had the same suspicions since she wrote Cardinal Arinze about this story. This is what she received in reply.

"Dear Ms. Kralis, His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Arinze, asks me to thank you for your communication regarding a news release from the "Catholic News Service" dated December 14, 2004. It concerns the Cardinal’s private discussion with the Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis, His Excellency Archbishop Harry J. Flynn.

"Cardinal Arinze wants you to know that the report was not exact and does not show his stand. He has written Archbishop Flynn about it.

"Rainbow Sash wearers, the Cardinal says, are showing their opposition to Church teaching on a major issue of natural law and so disqualify themselves from being given Holy Communion.

"I wish you a happy New Year. Sincerely."

Barbara wrote me about this story and included a jpg of a photocopy this document which I have placed here.

So what we have here is two cases where a Bishop who was already predisposed to offering communion to public dissenters talks to the Vatican and in both cases mischaracterized the communication to make it appear that those Vatican officials agreed with them in substance. So what is it about this issue that makes some Bishops run in terror of being a shepherd that they are willing to go so far as to distort the information they were given? Both cases involve situations where Catholics are publicly and very openly dissenting against Church teaching and are involved in objectively grave sin. Why is it that possible fear of being seen as political or getting press attention can override their concern for people making sacrilegious Communions or to use the Communion rail to rail against Church teaching?

I have yet to hear a good prudential argument to justify Communion for public sinners that takes in account the good of that persons soul. Usually we only get obfuscation where they move the argument away from public sinners to individual sinners whose sins are not known and then try to make to make the case that we would have to deny Communion to the majority of Catholics. The argument can easily be made that Catholic who dissent from Church teaching should withhold themselves from Communion until such time as they have repented of their opposition. Until their Amen can fully mean Amen to all the Church teaching, but this has nothing to do with are responsibility towards public sinners receiving Communion.

NEW YORK — An appeals court Tuesday revived part of a class-action lawsuit blaming McDonald’s for making people fat, reinstating claims pertaining to deceptive advertising. A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court judge erred when he dismissed parts of the lawsuit brought on behalf of two New York children. [Source]

I wonder if this would be classed as an "ate crime?"

As for the Academy Awards Passion snub in a meaningful category, I really don’t care. I can’t remember the last time I watched the Academy Awards or went to a film because it won best picture. Though the Passion did receive 2 to 3 more awards then I expected.

1. Cinematography
2. Original score
3. Makeup

Like many conservative pundits though I was overjoyed to hear that Michael Moore’s "Fahrenheit 9/11" received exactly zero nominations. To be fair though his film should have been nominated for best "Make up."

Nominated for a Documentary Short Subject was "Sister Rose’s Passion"

Sister Rose’s Passion, with Run time of 38 minutes 49 second, describes the largely thankless, often resisted lifelong crusade by a Catholic nun — Sister Rose Thering – to challenge the doctrine that blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus. She played a key role in Vatican II, which officially changed the church’s position on their relationship with the Jewish people. This documentary follows Sister Rose, today, at age 84, as she continues to fight against religious intolerance.

Director Oren Jacoby next movie sounds absolutely dreadful and I am sure will fulfill the maxim "garbage in, garbage out."

Jacoby said his current project is based on the book "Constantine’s Sword" by James Carroll, "the moving story of one Christian’s odyssey of discovery – of his own and his Church’s complicity in history’s most lethal hatred. A saga crossing 20 centuries and the length of one man’s life."

Update: Barbara Nicolosi paraphrases this years Oscar picks:

So, this year, the top Oscar nominations have gone to…

…a movie that makes a hero out of a man who murders his adopted daughter.

…a movie that makes a hero out of an abortionist.

…a movie that makes a hero out of a discredited researcher who was obsessed with sex and encouraged many others to experiment with various perversions.

…a movie that lionizes a billionaire narcissist who died insane from syphilis.

…a movie that suggests it is funny when an engaged man sets off for a week of debauchery before his marriage with his drunkard best friend.

…a movie that glamorizes four alley cats dressed as beautiful people who fornicate and commit adultery with each other, and indulge in various sexual perversions until the movie ends.

…a movie that makes a hero out of a paraplegic in despair who wants to kill himself.

DETROIT – Bishop Thomas Gumbleton is supposed to write a letter to Pope John Paul II next Wednesday. Trouble is, he doesn’t want to do it.

"Traditionally, you are supposed to write to the Pope on your 75th birthday and offer to resign," Michigan’s most politically controversial bishop said, chuckling softly over breakfast. "But it’s so arbitrary – some of them they ignore, but if you are the least bit progressive, they accept it immediately."

If that’s the case, the Vatican may accept his resignation with the speed of the Internet. But Bishop Tom has no desire to lay his burden down.

No surprise there. In a career built on disobedience this is just one more disobedient act. Bishop Gumbleton has been a favorite of the National Catholic Reporter and the graying Call to Action crowd with his support of women’s ordination and acceptance of homosexual acts.

What if he somehow just forgets to send the letter in?

"I suspect I’ll get a call saying that the Pope is looking for my letter." He thinks forcing him into retirement would be a waste. He says he knows another round of church closings is coming.

"They say it isn’t arbitrary, but it is, and they never address the real reason, which is that there aren’t enough priests."

He thinks the archdiocese should train a network of lay pastoral ministers, and send priests in to perform the sacraments. But his advice tends to be ignored. He admired Cardinal Dearden and sometimes got into shouting matches with his successor, Edmund Cardinal Szoka. But the current archbishop, Adam Cardinal Maida, mostly just ignores him. [Source]

Whether he is forced into retirement or not it is a good policy to ignore him or anybody else that can’t speak a paragraph without saying "prophetic voice." Since he is so high on concentrating on pastoral ministers and seeing priests as only performers of sacraments he shouldn’t mind only saying the Mass without getting involved in a parish.

I was reading an article by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek on the inauguration and I ran across this statement.

To borrow an old saw about the mission of journalism, Bush’s words will “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

I have often run across this saying or some form of it as one of the ends for preaching and that this is what a good sermon would entail. I had not realized that this was also used by journalists. Doing some research (meaning Google) it seems that it was first used journalistically by Finley Peter Dunne and later attributed to H.L. Menken. It has also been used by multiple Protestant Theologians throughout the 20th century and possibly before. The reason this saying struck me is that I thought it was odd that it would be claimed by both preachers and journalists. Maybe not that strange though when you consider that many journalists see themselves in a way to be preachers. That they have become the secular clergy who perform written benediction over liberal causes and preach hellfire about conservative ideas. That the stories they write are often closer to sermons then just a recounting of facts is no surprise with this paradigm. That many stories you read coming from sources like Reuters or the AP are written to elicit the response of amen by the faithful reader. Unfortunately papers like the New York and LA Times are just preaching to the choir and only comfort the comfortable and make reading their biased stores an affliction.