Punditry

Dawn Eden in a story on Planned Parenthood encouraging J.K. Rowlings to write sex education into her next novel has what I consider to be one of the funniest headlines I have ever seen. She is the master of the punny headline but you need to go here to see this one for yourself!

Banned Parenthood has no shame when it comes to wanting to corrupt children with their message. People would have a fit if Big Tobacco asked J.K. Rowlings to have Harry and friends start smoking as a way to generate money, but PP does worse and people would probably call it eng lightened thinking.

Now I can imagine the difficulties of Harry trying to make out in the backseat of a broom. And wizards are often impotent because of crystal balls. Do they really want Harry to create a draught of contraception or an abortion potion? Possibly to conjure up a condom and enchant a safe sex spell?

Harry Potter And The Adulterer’s Zone
Harry Potter And The Bedchamber Of Regrets
Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Abstinence
Harry Potter And The Object Of Desire!
Harry Potter and the Order of the Penis

In a 2004 presidential candidate questionnaire for Humane USA, Mr. Kerry was asked whether any pets have had an impact on his life.
"I have always had pets in my life, and there are a few that I remember very fondly," Mr. Kerry replied. "When I was serving on a Swift Boat in Vietnam, my crewmates and I had a dog we called VC.

"One day as our Swift Boat was heading up a river, a mine exploded hard under our boat," he continued. "After picking ourselves up, we discovered VC was MIA (missing in action). Several minutes of frantic search followed, after which we thought we’d lost him. We were relieved when another boat called asking if we were missing a dog."

Said Mr. Kerry: "It turns out VC was catapulted from the deck of our boat and landed, confused but unhurt, on the deck of another boat in our patrol." [Source]

This has all the marks of what we called in the Navy a "sea story." They way you tell the difference from a fairy tale and a sea story is that a fairy tale starts out "Once upon a time" and a sea story starts "This is no bulls***." First there is the plausibility of taking a dog out on missions when brass is flying. Never mind that one of his crewmembers has already stated (on the Hugh Hewitt show) that there were no dogs on board the Swiftboat or on any of the other boats. But the story of this dog getting catapulted and landing on another boat is over the top. Then we have the statement that another boat asked them if they were missing a dog. Swiftboat crews worked and lived together daily. Wouldn’t they already know any dog that was a regular fixture or a mascot on another boat? Wouldn’t this amazing story be a part of Kerry’s journals that he wrote and wouldn’t this event have been told in David Brinkley’s "Tour of Duty." It seems that with every retelling of his time with the swifites new details are added and custom made for the circumstances. Whether it is VC the dog story for the humane society or a Cambodia story seared in his brain to relate on the Senate floor. At least he could start our his stories with "This is no bulls"""."

A Dominican friar chimes in on Archbishop Pell’s critic Father John Crothers as mentioned in my post here.

Crothers brought them up because he implies ideas don’t matter any more, management is all that’s left. Pell, he says, is at liberty to indulge his ultra-conservative opinions. He wrote, "Being conservative or liberal is neither right nor wrong, it’s just the way we are" – as Jerry Seinfeld might have said. Why then should it matter whether "neo-conservatives" are appointed to Redfern or the seminary chapel tizzied up?

What matters is that the church isn’t a bowling club or a hamburger franchise. It has something to say about God and mankind that it believes comes from Jesus Christ.

As they say, read the whole thing.
[Via Off the Record]

I have been following the Christmas in Cambodia statement by John Kerry pretty close and I want to know what the big deal is? Other than that he wasn’t in Cambodia, it wasn’t Christmas, Richard Nixon was not President yet, that the Khmer Rouge were not a fighting force yet, that large noisy Swift boats wouldn’t be used for secretive missions, that we were not gun-running at the time, that no crew member will collaborate the story; other than that what is the problem?

Actually every time I read more details I keep hearing that song from Mel Brook’s "The Producers" in my head. Only "Springtime for Hitler in Germany" becomes "Christmas for Kerry in Cambodia, Swiftboats working with the CIA , we are lying at a faster pace, look out – Kerry has more than one face."

For details I would refer you to the Powerline Blog and the recent article they wrote for the Boston Herald

Matt C. Abbot has a column up about op-ed battle between Arlene Sawicki and Jeffrey Hogan in Chicago about a play featuring two nude in in front of front of a lighted large screen background.

Pro-life activist Arlene Sawicki opposes it based on community decency laws and for this she received a very tolerant and loving email that laid out reasonable arguments in support of the play. One of the strongest arguments was the following:

"Seriously, you are a fat stupid housewife. How dare you pretend to determine the artistic value of anything outside your fabulous, home-cooked meatloaf."

A Sydney priest has taken a stand against his boss, the Archbishop, George Pell, and published an uncompromising critique of his leadership.

Father John Crothers, a priest for 19 years in the Sydney Archdiocese, has condemned Cardinal Pell’s conservative leadership style as "exclusive and inflexible", expressing itself in an "us and them" mentality that has led to low morale among his fellow priests and alienation by many parishioners.

The criticism has triggered a strong response, and the National Council of Priests has indicated that it would support Father Crothers if he faced disciplinary action.

The latest issue of the independent Online Catholics carries Father Crothers’s article with its series of recent examples of what he calls his boss’s non-consultative leadership style which has created deep division in an archdiocese that now appears to see the "institution [of the church] as more important than the people in it".

And just what might be an example of this extreme conservative leadership?

The final straw compelling Father Crothers to go public came last week, after he had to inform a devastated parishioner suffering from chronic coeliac disease that she would no longer be able to receive Holy Communion. The Vatican has ordered all manufacturers and suppliers of gluten-free hosts to cease production and distribution of them.

Father Crothers said he knew he had to take a stand. Something had gone "seriously wrong" in a church where conservative leadership was promoting religion as an end in itself, at the expense of the rights and needs of faithful Catholics. [Source]

Yes here we go again. It is one thing for the mother of a child that suffers from celiacs disease to not understand sacramental theology and quite another for a priest to make the same mistake.

In the same online periodical that prints Father Crothers article also has another article called "Valid" Hosts could make you sick. Notice the scare quotes around valid and Online Catholic also proudly announces that it is a independent news magazine just like the National Catholic Reporter does. In their article they say:

Catholics with coeliac disease are likely to suffer ill effects if they receive the Eucharist made under a new formula which begins production this week, according to the Coeliac Society of Australia.

Technical Officer for the Society, Graham Price, said this week that the new formula, which uses wheaten corn flour, contains 200 parts per million of (wheat) gluten. This amount may be called ‘low gluten’ under Australian standards, which are amongst the strictest in the world. Wheat gluten damages the lining of the bowel in sufferers, preventing the absorption of nutrients. This causes many different and wide ranging health effects, from miscarriage to cancer. The Coeliac Society estimates that one person in every 100 to 200 has an allergic reaction to gluten from wheat, oats, barley and rye. Australian law requires foods which contain gluten to be so labelled.

Ozanam Industries, which is the largest producer of hosts in Australia, was told by the National Liturgical Commission to find a new formula for the production of the host following the 24 July 2003 Instruction by the Congregation for the Faith. The Instruction says in part:

1. Hosts that are completely gluten free are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist.
2. Low-gluten hosts (partially gluten free) are valid matter, provided they contain a sufficient amount of gluten to obtain the confection of bread without the addition of foreign materials and without the use of procedures that would alter the nature of bread.

Bread suppliers were then required to find a solution which would satisfy the liturgical requirements but also community health concerns.

…Rev. Peter Williams, Executive Officer of the National Liturgical Commission, says that his primary concern is for the pastoral needs of people. "I am trying to find a solution that will satisfy the instruction but that will also enable Catholics with coeliac disease to participate in the sacramental life of the Church," Fr Williams told Online Catholics.

Statements like this make me feel like the kid in the back of the classroom frantically waving their arms to answer a question. In this whole article not one mention is made of giving these people only the Precious Blood. Quite an odd omission considering that the Church has always taught that it does not matter under what species you receive the Eucharist is that you fully receive both the body and blood of the Lord sacramentally. Kevin Miller had a good overview on this subject that both by tradition and canon law that wheaten bread is required for valid matter. So I wonder what the big outcry is about when it doesn’t take a genius to determine that in these cases using the Precious Blood is an easy solution.

Fr Anthony Doherty, a former Dean of St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney now at Rose Bay parish, thinks that Instructions such as the one issued by the Congregation are overly influenced by a Latin American mindset. "For them, the idea of ‘gluten free’ hosts is just an expression of (US) American excess," Fr Doherty said.

"Really, the problem is with their theology. If you have what’s called an ‘ascending’ theology of the eucharist, you begin with Jesus, coming together to share food and drink, his call to remember, his prayer and the community of believers.

"But if you have a ‘descending’ theology, the bread and wine are ‘confected’ by the priest, and as a consequence Jesus appears in a ‘magical’ way. This is the way priests think who continue to celebrate Mass all by themselves.

"The insistence on wheat flour by Rome is another unfortunate occasion when non essential matters create discord," Fr Doherty said.

The is an expression of American excess? That is just too laughable to adequately comment on. It is just funny to believe the the Vatican’s Congregation for the Faith is in the grasp of American excess. But then he adds the common progressive line that these things are non-essential and thus don’t matter. I have seen the argument made in the comment box on another blog that since God is all powerful he can transform the elements of anything into his body and blood. I wonder if people that put forward these arguments would think it acceptable to baptize their children with sand instead of water? Why not a brownie with chocolate milk as the constituent elements at a children’s Mass if it truly doesn’t matter? A sacrament is visible sign of an invisible grace and the visible sign has some resemblance to that invisible reality. The only discord created is by those that have their own agenda for the sacraments and how they are viewed. There is just no good reason to offer those with celiacs decease the Precious Blood unless you are as the Whapters pointed out a Hussite.

Now getting back to Father Crothers diatribe against Cardinal Pell we have.

One such example was the Good Shepherd Seminary. The Cardinal spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of Archdiocesan money to remodel the relatively new seminary chapel along very traditional lines. There was no consultation with the diocese generally, there was no consultation with the clergy, and there was no consultation with the Council of Priests. If I had done the same thing in a parish situation I would not only have been seriously challenged by the parishioners but also rapped over the knuckles by the bishops.

Now since the Cardinal is totally responsible for any seminaries in his diocese he has the right to do this. I can easily imagine how this relatively new chapel looked like previous to the Cardinal having to step in and remodel it. I wonder if what he means by traditional is having that tabernacle in a place of honor and having kneelers and statues?

Father then goes on to make charges about Scribes and Pharisees. Whenever this is done the distinction about law of god and a man-made law are never made. The phrase is leveled as if adherence to any rule is wrong. They also tend to forget about the opposite of the Pharisees -the Sadducees who followed no rules but whatever suited them. He ends with:

It is not easy to publicly criticise the Church hierarchy. As in all institutions there is strong pressure not to rock the boat, not to "break ranks". I write this article the day after the feast of Mary MacKillop and I think I am getting some sense of what Mary must have felt in deciding to challenge her local bishop.

I wonder how many times I have read statements about it is not easy to criticise the Church Hierarchy right after they have written multiple paragraphs doing just that and then covering this up in righteousness of a necessary rebuke. Blessed Mary MacKillop challenged her local Bishop because it appears that he was an alcoholic who acted on gossip about her congregation. The Bishop excommunicated Mary on the charge of disobedience, then dispensed 47 nuns from their vows. In 1872, on his deathbed, he apologized for his actions and absolved Mary from excommunication. The Vatican investigated the circumstances and supported MacKillop and her nuns against some of the local bishops. This is a far cry from someone attacking their Bishop for using only valid matter and remodeling a seminary chapel.

.. on the whole sordid Deal Hudson and National Catholic Reporter story.

Deal should have come out and said he was a "Gay American." (or does that only work for liberals?)

It is nice to know that the NCR finally recognizes a sexual sin to condemn.

Seriously though, I don’t understand why Deal Hudson could write a full length book on his conversion recently and then leave out this incident. I know that talking about old sins is hard but as a very public Catholic it was something that should have happened and his book would have been a good vehicle for this. I am sorry that I read the NCR article, though I did stop reading it after a bit. I was not prepared for it’s contents after reading Deal’s piece at NRO yesterday where he referred to this event as only an allegation in the past by a female student. There is a difference between reporting on someone’s’ past sin and writing a story like it was part of the Starr Report. Similarly in confession between detailing one’s sins and bragging about them and the NCR piece seemed to revel in the steamy revelations.

When the story first broke yesterday even though Deal Hudson never mentioned what newspaper this was for, everybody who is even partially familiar with the National Catholic Reporter knew that it was them being referred to. As Dom posted yesterday

Gee, what national liberal Catholic publication with reporters on staff would be interested in using dirty tactics against a conservative Catholic friend of the president? I’m not naming any names, but it is a short list.

Dom also links today to a very sympathetic piece from NCR on Archbishop Weakland after it was found out that he had paid his homosexual lover off with diocesan funds. "The Weakland case: an invitation to cast the first stone."

Update: From Deal’s latest e-letter.

Yesterday, the article was published. In it, they dug up a truly embarrassing event from my past. Ten years ago, I committed a serious sin with an undergraduate student of mine while teaching at Fordham University. For this I am truly and deeply sorry. I have confessed this and asked for forgiveness, my family has worked through it, and time has passed. But I know this is news to you, and so I offer my sincerest apologies. I recognize that I have let countless people down and have brought scandal to myself, my family, and my Faith. For this, I beg your forgiveness.

Some may wonder why I speak of the event in a way that seems vague or abstract. Please don’t mistake this for lack of shame, regret, or repentance. The simple fact is, I can’t say any more about it. Ten years ago, I signed a confidentiality agreement, and so I’m seriously constrained in what I can say. I know this is frustrating for you, and so that’s one more thing I apologize for.

I need to make one final point. There’s much deserved condemnation coming down upon me right now, and I expect it will continue. But I do hope that this just anger will not spill over onto CRISIS Magazine.

TRENTON, N.J. Aug. 13, 2004 — Gov. James E. McGreevey, a one-time rising Democratic star and twice-married father, announced his resignation with the startling disclosure that he is gay and had an extramarital affair with a man that he said threatened to undermine his "ability to govern."

"My truth is that I am a gay American," McGreevey said Thursday at a news conference with his second wife by his side. He described decades of sexual confusion that dogged him through two marriages and ultimately led him to an act he called "wrong, foolish and inexcusable."

It is just too bad that this Governor made the wrong career choice. If he would have been and Episcopalian instead and had a homosexual affair he career options wouldn’t have been limited and he could have become a Bishop instead. Especially with extremely relativistic statements like "my truth" he would have been a natural. He was also politically savvy by putting this in the context of the gay debate instead of the I am being blackmailed with a threat to sue for sexual harassment.

I think ScrappleFace put it best with its parody headline N.J. Governor: "I’m a Gay Adulterous American"

Some people have praised his seeming forthrightness in this statement, just like when he said he disagreed with the Archbishop about Communion but that he would not receive in public. But he is playing politics by not resigning before the November election and he is not allowing the people of New Jersey a choice as to who will be governor. Another contradiction for this pro-choice Catholic.

Here is an article in the Denver Post which references a statement posted by a http://www.priesthood.motime.com/“>St. Blog’s seminarian.

When it comes to sex, marriage or democracy – why bother with the opinion of a celibate Catholic priest? Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan (http://www.priesthood.motime.com/) claims that marriage isn’t an invention of man. According to Sheridan (and hundreds of other Catholic theologians), "God himself is the author of marriage." Sheridan challenges Catholics to "do all we can to promote marriage and family life" in American society; condemns same-sex marriage ("This opens the door to polygamy and any number of other perversions…"); and claims that the one man-one woman marriage model is a matter of "natural law".

I disagree with Sheridan, but that’s not my point. He’s entitled to his opinion, but the real question is: who cares? When it comes to marriage and family life – heterosexual or homosexual – why would anyone bother with the opinion of a Catholic priest? What can a man who’s vowed to live his life without sex, marriage or family know about any of it? Sure, scores of priests have broken their vows of celibacy, but that’s just sex on the sly (hopefully with a consenting adult, or am I being too optimistic?) – hardly an example of a healthy sexual or intimate relationship.

So I wonder if she also advocates elimination psychiatrists. After all if the person isn’t crazy they couldn’t possibly understand their patient. And I am sure she looks for sick doctors when she seeks healthcare. I am constantly amazed at the lack of intellectual depth in arguments made in editorials. She has previously done some columns on the military and yet doesn’t appear to have served. Now this argument is common such as saying that men aren’t allowed to have an opinion on abortion since they can’t bear children. Now after she makes this argument she then as a non-Catholic gives her opinion on what the Catholic Church should do.

And I can’t fathom what self-respecting woman would sit in church on Sunday and listen to a man behind a pulpit who doesn’t believe she’s good enough to don the priestly robes herself

But it is no surprise that she lashes out on this issue since she has made speeches equating civil rights with gay rights. Even though she is married she also seems to think that it is consistent to have an opinion on gay marriage.

I’m Dani Newsum – I’d like to introduce my husband Ron, and our daughter McKenna. We are proud to be here with you today, standing for equality. But if the hateful people who today are intent on amending our national Constitution into a weapon of mass destruction – destroying the ability of gay and lesbian Americans to live their lives freely, peacefully and openly – if these people had had their way, I wouldn’t be here today, with my family, standing together with you. I have never seen a political party like today’s Republican Party: so hell-bent on using the law to make so many people into second-class citizens.

So now to believe that the homosexual lifestyle is immoral is to also be a racist.

Whatever. This foolishness is what happens when a cult of men with terminal cases of arrested sexual and psychosocial development try to make sense out of lifestyles they’re afraid to live for themselves.

Well since she isn’t a celibate priest I guess we should follow her advice and not listen to her.

From a flyer for VOTF.

Catholics of the Archdiocese of Boston
Come join together for a joy-filled event
Mass on Boston Common
Sunday, August 15
4:00 p.m.(3:30 p.m. hymns and celebration)

Purpose of the Mass: To celebrate as Church during these difficult years, as a community of believers in solidarity with all Catholics in the Boston Archdiocese; to attend to the grieving of all parishes that are closing; and to achieve this by participating in the Eucharist, the source of Life, healing, and strength, to realize God’s Unconditional Love.

There will be prayer, song, and community!
Bring lawn chairs, blankets, banners, and a picnic for later!

From Redemptionis Sacramentum

1. The Place for the Celebration of Holy Mass

[108.] “The celebration of the Eucharist is to be carried out in a sacred place, unless in a particular case necessity requires otherwise. In this case the celebration must be in a decent place.”[197] The diocesan Bishop shall be the judge for his diocese concerning this necessity, on a case-by-case basis.

Figure the odds that VOTF has received permission by Bishop Sean O’Malley to have Mass outside at the Boston Commons. Not very likely when the whole event is designed to undermine his authority and to try to come up with ways of stopping church closings. They have chose the Feast of the Assumption (which is not even mentioned in the flyers or on their site) for this Mass. VOTF is struggling to be relevant and they have latched themselves onto the emotional issue of these closings They say they "Support Priests of Integrity" and yet they have done nothing but fight against their good Bishop and have accused him of using Parish closings as a way to attack VOTF. I guess their definition of a priest of integrity are those who line up with them.

According to Kelly Clark’s comment on a post at Dom’s site the celebrants are:

Father Robert Bowers, Saint Catherine of Siena, Charlestown
Father Stephen Josoma, Saint Susanna, Dedham
Father Ron Coyne, Saint Albert the Great, Weymouth
Father David Gill, S.J., Saint Mary of the Angels, Roxbury

These are vocal dissenters and Fr. Bowers on his parish web site makes such claims as

in the case of some parishes the impacts of closing will fall disproportionately upon non-white minorities, and in at least one case, upon the hearing-impaired.

He tries to soften this charge with "whether deliberately or unintentionally" but he goes on to repeatedly make this charge that the closing fall unproportionally on "people of color." He also mentions the real purpose of the Mass which is to schedule several media events. This information came from a letter he wrote to Attorney General Thomas Reilly to try to get him to intervene. So here we have the so-called Voice of the Faithful actively slandering the Archbishop with claims of going after parishes with minorities and disabilities.