Feb 032015

There have been a number of stories regarding bakers and others refusing to materially cooperate with same-sex marriage and the resulting prosecution. When such stories appear we run the mental simulation of reversing the story and wondering what would happen. In this case such as requesting a baker to do some activity contrary to their possible support of same-sex marriage.

DENVER – Azucar Bakery on South Broadway is under investigation for religious discrimination by the Civil Rights division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies stemming from a March 2014 incident.


A customer came into the store and requested a couple of cakes in the shape of Bibles, according to the owner Marjorie Silva.

Silva says the man pulled out a piece of paper with hateful phrases like “God hates gays” and requested her to write them on his cakes. He wouldn’t let employees make a copy of the paper and would not read the words out loud, Silva claims. The bakery owner also says the customer wanted an image of two men holding hands with an “X” on top.

“After I read it, I was like ‘No way,’” Silva said. “‘We’re not doing this. This is just very discriminatory and hateful.’”

Silva then received a complaint from DORA for religious discrimination.

“It’s unfair that he’s accusing me of discriminating when I think he was the one that is discriminating,” Silva said.

My first reaction when I saw this story was “Ha! About time somebody performed this reverse action.”

My second reaction was to repent of my first reaction. This really is evil. This is treating a person as a means to an end.

With all the other cases often it was remarked that the businesses were singled out by same-sex activists and this was certainly a possibility. People rightly decried this aspect. That the women was specifically targeted is quite evident in this case. That is is okay to sick the state on somebody to make an ironic point is totally missing the point of conscience rights and religious freedom. We want others to respect conscience rights while cheering trampling somebody else’s. That because somebody is wrong about their support of something means that you can treat them as somebody with no rights.

This is simply inexcusable, just as the other cases by same-sex activists were.

Jan 072015

Living in Florida I could have sworn I voted for a state constitutional amendment – Florida Definition of Marriage back in 2008. I was sure that it had passed by 62%. I also thought that we lived in a republic with a representational government. Silly me.

Should have remembered we live in a judgocracy. Usually at voting time I remember this as I always vote no on retaining judges. So after five judges interfered regarding this amendment it was overturned and expired on Jan 5, 2015 allowing same-sex “marriage” on the Feast of the Epiphany. Five “wise” judges replace the wise men.

On 5 January, 2015 the Catholic Bishops of Florida issued a statement addressing the redefinition of marriage. A fairly typical statement regarding the “redefinition of marriage.” Although I don’t find that a very accurate term. Mostly their has been an undefinition of marriage since they totally lack an ability to rationally define it.

The Archbishop of Miami wrote this letter for diocesan employees.

Dear Employees of the Archdiocese of Miami:

Given recent decisions by courts in Florida that has imposed the redefinition of marriage. I am attaching the statement issued today by the Florida Catholic Conference to provide you useful information regarding the teaching of the Church as well as assist you in answering any questions posed to you by family or friends on the subject.

Whatever the role in which you serve withing the Archdiocese, you publicly represent the Catholic Church and the Archdiocese in everything you do and say. Therefore, it is important thay you understand the Church’s position and are well informed. Our Archdiocesan website also contains prior columns I have written on marriage that might be useful.

Our Archdiocese of Miami Employee Handbook reminds us of the standard of conduct expected:

At all times and places, employees are expected to conduct themselves in a moral and ethical manner consistent with Catholic principles.

Employees will witness by their public behavior, actions and words a life consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. All employees should note that, because of the Church’s particular function in society, certain conduct, inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church, could lead to disciplinary action, including termination, even if it occurs outside the normal working day and outside the strict confines of work performed by the employee for the Archdiocese. Employees should exercise discretion when posting on social media sites, and note that online activity indicative of prohibitive behaviors may subject an employee to disciplinary action or termination.

Be assured of my gratitude for all you do for the Archdiocese of Miami each day.

Most Reverend Thomas G. Wenski

Archbishop of Miami

Archdiocese of Miami Employee Handbook

Nice to see the Archbishops proactive statement. Yet if somebody is fired our lovely court system will no doubt award them money such as the Catholic school teacher fired for using IVF who was recently awarded $1.95M.

Dec 132014

When I first started seeing headlines about Pope Francis saying animals go to Heaven I pretty much ignored the headlines and their supposed content. I doesn’t take much intelligence to know that this would be either total fabrication or something close to that. The headlines have had staying power and have continued throughout the week in various forms of media.

Thus I figured it wouldn’t be long until Jimmy Akin had a post refuting the whole thing. Today he published Did Pope Francis say animals go to heaven? in which he summarizes at the start “But the thing is … the whole story is false.”

Now Pope Francis speeches are not known for their exactness and are prone to generalities over precision. So in the back of my mind I thought there was a possibility that this tendency lead to this story in the typical distorted amplification of his words. Wow not only did they invent Pope Francis’s words for the story but came up with some new ones for St. Paul. Must have been from the lost Gospel of Fido.

Now even if all animals went to Heaven I would have serious questions about the salvation of journalists and editors and members of news agencies. This is just another case in a long line of cases where journalists have no love for the truth or any concern regarding the truth. Maybe Pontius Pilate is the patron of journalists. This case being even more egregious than normal. No fact checking just passed along from one news agency to another. The false quote of St. Paul should have been a major tipoff. It is so obvious that zero attempt was made to acquire even the most basic facts or even spending 5 minutes on Google.

So how does such a story get passed on? No doubt there are multiple reasons. When it comes to reporting on the Church any stick will do to beat the Church including one used to play fetch with their pet dog. Page views and driving traffic for advertising dollars is probably another aspect. Sensationalism in journalism is nothing new, but click-bait headlines and stories low or totally barren of facts bring this to a new level and a declining one at that. Sure such stories are gist for the mill of headline writers.

I found CNN’s Did Pope Francis open a doggy door to heaven? to be the funniest of the lot. The story itself tried to update itself but failed even at that.

Editor’s note: A previous version of this story, citing a newspaper, attributed a quote to Pope Francis. The quote actually comes from Pope Paul VI.

The problem with that is we have no evidence that Pope Paul VI said it either. As Jimmy Akin points out:

7) Did Pope Paul VI say to a bereaved boy what is attributed to him?

Who knows?

If you search the Vatican web site for the relevant quote, you get nothing.

At this point, I don’t see why anyone should trust anything attributed to a pope about animals going to heaven—not without a solid reference to a checkable, primary source document.

I have heard several attempts to try to side step this understanding especially when talking with children. A lot of people really want the idea of their pets going to Heaven. So it seems strange to me that if Blessed Paul VI ever said this that the quote would be in use in a larger circulation. C.S. Lewis also speculated on this in his book “The Problem of Pain.” Still it seems to me there is often more an emotional appeal to a theological appeal.

The CNN article goes on.

While Catholic teachings don’t reject the notion that animals have souls, traditional dogma has long held that animals don’t go to heaven.

Well Catholic teaching has long held distinctions between, plant souls, sensitive souls (such as animals), and the rational soul such as we have. All living things have souls as the soul is the form of the body. St. Thomas Aquinas detailed the thrust of the distinctions as we currently understand them. Still as far as I know there is no magisterial teaching on this as to the classes of souls. Much less a dogmatic (hey that’s pretty funny in context) teaching that animals don’t go to heaven. The CNN articles tries to be somewhat skeptical of the story, but still totally blunders in its corrections. As Mark Shea says about reporting on the Church is that you can take off 50 IQ points.

Another aspect of the ridiculous coverage of the Church that I have notice growing in the last year is how often so-called traditionalists fall for them. Most serious Catholics are highly skeptical of Church reporting for good reason. Yet I keep seeing more and more stories on “traditionalist” sites that take these stories as Gospel. Instead of any stick to beat the Church it is any stick that can beat Pope Francis. There not skeptical of the stories because they are skeptical of Pope Francis and see even bad reporting via confirmation bias. This annoys me since I have common cause with many of the liturgical complaints of “traditionalists”, but this hatred or loathing of Pope Francis makes them as agenda driven as most secular journalists.

On the lighter side the brilliant “Eye of the Tiber” presents Pope Francis confirms casts still going to Hell. I have a couple of cats, but that is still pretty funny. Surely the Cat-echism say otherwise.

Nov 122014

I can almost always rely on maximum spin and distortion for a story from the Religion News Service. This article by Kimberly Winston delivered via RNS and Crux is very laughable in a sad way.

Were some Catholic saints transgender? Berkeley show raises eyebrows

BERKELEY, Calif. — Step into the one-room art gallery inside the Pacific School of Religion and look closely at the saints in the paintings: Some have beards; some have buzz cuts; some have their breasts obscured; some appear in unisex clothes like tanks tops and jeans.

Are they women or men?

That’s the point of artist Alma Lopez’s new show, “Queer Santas: Holy Violence,” on display at this theological school known for its embrace of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons. In playing with the gender characteristics of religious icons usually depicted as feminine, Lopez asks us to reconsider our ideas of religion, beauty, and gender.

Justin Tanis, who teaches at the school, said it’s as if these saints, with their direct eye contact and open arms, are saying, “‘I am natural, I am one of God’s people.’ And yet this is an image that many people would consider heretical because gender play is involved.”

Gender play is at work in each of the icons in the show — St. Lucia, St. Wilgefortis, and St. Liberata.

Lopez, a visiting artist at the University of California, Los Angeles, said she was attracted to these saints because their stories have a common theme — each one tried to step out of the expected role for a woman of her time and, as a result, was the victim of terrible violence.

Take St. Wilgefortis’ story. A 14th-century noblewoman promised in marriage without her consent, she prayed to God to be made ugly so she could keep a vow of chastity she made to Jesus. God granted her a man’s beard. The marriage was off, but Wilgefortis — whose name means “strong face” — was crucified by her father.

The stories of St. Liberata and St. Lucia are similar: Liberata sprouted a beard, and Lucia had her eyes torn out when she disappointed her family.

“All of these saints are women who took their own agency and stepped outside gender norms,” Tanis said as he stood before Lopez’s rendition of St. Liberata, arms splayed in a way that suggests both crucifixion and winged flight. “In that sense, they were queer and violence was done to them for it.”

As they say “Read the whole thing” if you want to get hit repeatedly with the stupid hammer.

“So far it’s been quiet,” he said. “But we are prepared to offer hospitality to any protesters.”

In other words “Where are the protesters? We did something shocking to draw the loving media gaze and nobody is giving us free publicity by protesting us.”

Oct 202014

Well now that the synod is over until they meet again next year it is time for a little wrap up.

Thankfully Tom McDonald saved me from writing an inferior post so I will just point to The “Thank You God the Synod Is Over” Post. I totally agree with his synopsis concerning the synod and that while there were certainly areas to be concerned it was not the gates of hell some anticipated.

There was a soap opera aspect “As the Synod Turns” and once again highlighted how bad the Church can be a communication. The initial publishing of the relatio post disceptationem, the translation problems, the pushback by Cardinals regarding it, and the final release of the document as voted on by the synod. This was a total mess. Jimmy Akin described the document It’s written in turgid ecclesiastical bafflegab.

Now if this was a soap opera I would certainly vote for the character of Cardinal Kasper to be the one to develop amnesia.

Still all this reminds me is that we are not the Church of the document. Documents can be useful and to clarify matters. Yet they hardly ever settle anything. Remember how the issuing of Humanae Vitae settled the issue of contraception or how Ordinatio Sacerdotalis stopped people supporting women’s ordination? Me neither. The majority of Catholic are likely never to read documents issued by the Vatican or even bishop conferences. Mostly what they hear is mediated through the news media which means most of what they hear is just plain wrong. Fr. Longenecker recently describe how twice in one week people came to him who were in irregular marriages thinking they could now receive Communion.

The continuing problem, which will likely always be so, is how to provide ongoing formation when the main vehicle is a ten minute homily on Sundays. Sure there is such a wealth of resources now for committed Catholic to seek this out. This is just not much of a priority seemingly for most Catholics. Too often it is the Culture not the Catechism that is providing formation. So regardless what shape the final Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation takes, this problem will of course remain.

It was not the synod of bishops, the curia, or bishop’s conferences that Jesus gave the great commission to. It was to each and everyone of us. It is an easy habit to want to outsource this responsibility to them and then complain about how they are handling our individual responsibility.

Oct 132014

Today the Synod released Relatio post disceptationem which as Jimmy Akin describes

(i.e., a report after discussion), which summarized the discussions held in the first week of the synod.

As with most things regarding the Synod or the Church in general there are narrative reactions with people always looking for major changes in the Church and those who panic that such changes are going to happen. The truth isn’t always in the middle, although with Vatican documents the truth is usually in the muddle.

The invaluable Thomas L. McDonald posts a initial reaction on a first pass through the document Fisking the Synod “Relatio”. Well worth reading in full.

It’s a summary of the discussion as it stands. Most of it is very good. Out of 58 paragraphs, about four are awful.

Which means that all the attention (media and otherwise) will be on those four paragraphs. Unfortunately the awful paragraphs are truly awful and remove clarity in an area that is such a modern hot issue. Fr Longenecker posts regarding this I fear this is ill thought out, sentimentalist, wishy washy, secularist nonsense.

Since the “law of gradualness” has been much discussed recently along with showing up in this document it is very helpful to read The Law of Gradualness: 12 things to know and share. A couple of points he makes specifically regarding this subject and the document released.

10) Is this same understanding of the law of gradualness present in Familiaris Consortio and the Vademecum for Confessors?

It does not appear so. At least from what has been said thus far, it appears more to reflect the “gradualness of law” that was warned against in those documents, according to which a decisive break with sin is not required before receiving absolution and holy Communion, and in which a different standard of what constitutes sin would be applied to some than is applied to others.

11) Does the Relatio change Church teaching regarding the law of gradualness?

No. The Relatio is a summary what various bishops proposed in discussions. It is not a document of the Magisterium.

The document accurately reports that one group of bishops proposed this—and that others opposed it—but it does nothing to change Church teaching.

John Thavis, a reporter covering the Vatican, called it a “Pastoral earthquake” and that terminology has spread out into plenty of article. Although as we know from scripture, God is not in the Earthquake. Plus after reading John Thavis’ book “The Vatican Diaries”, I am not impressed by his analysis in general.

“Acts of the Apostasy” has some humorous analysis BREAKING! JERUSALEM COUNCIL ISSUES REPORT; CHRISTIANS BRISTLE

Sep 112014


They’re back, yes it is the Nuns on the Bus part 3 returning like a sequel to a bad horror movie.

This time it’s the Catholic sisters versus the Koch brothers.

That’s one way to look at the upcoming “Nuns on the Bus” tour, which hits the road next week (Sept. 17) for the third time in three years, a month long trip though 10 key U.S. Senate battleground states to campaign against the influence of outside money on politics.

The issue has come to be identified with the wealthy industrialist brothers Charles and David Koch, whose huge contributions to conservative political causes have raised concerns about the role of “dark money” on elections.

The spigot for such undisclosed donations, which can be made by unions as well as corporations, was opened by the controversial 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision. That was followed by another 5–4 ruling in April of this year, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

“It’s all about ‘we the people’ standing up against big money,” said Sister Simone Campbell, who heads Network, a Catholic social justice lobby on Capitol Hill that is organizing more than 75 events in 36 cities along the 5,252-mile route.

There is at least this at the end of the column:

(Editor’s note: David Gibson assisted Sister Simone Campbell in writing her memoir, “A Nun on the Bus: How All of Us Can Create Hope, Change, and Community,” which was published earlier this year.)

But hey you know David Gibson is totally subjective. Oh and just by the way he just kind of forgot to mention that the Nuns on a Bus are partially funded by the George Soros “Faith in Public Life”. Yes they are complaining against evil political money if it is donated by conservatives. Although since the Koch brothers support same-sex marriage and abortion you would think Sister Simone would see them more as allies. Still she probably follows the Harry Reid Koch fanaticism.

Still it comes down to the nuns removing the speck from their brothers eye while having their vision obscured by a plank. This is known as the Plank constant, the proportional constant between what you rail against and your own complicity measured in hypocrimeters. So a course a nun partially funded with Soros money who spoke at the 2012 Democratic convention and basically went on a bus tour for them is the perfect representative to speak about wealthy people and their political causes.

In a related story here is one that has not gotten the attention it deserved. Via A Shepherd’s Voice

This week’s _Catholic San Francisco_, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of San Francisco has an important and comprehensive expose of the motivations and funding of ‘Catholic’ homosexualist groups seeking to undermine the Church.

The actual article starts with:

Gay rights money funds archbishop’s critics

Faithful America part of national progressive advocacy network

September 10th, 2014

By Valerie Schmalz

“Many Catholics in the San Francisco Bay Area were surprised by the strong negative reaction to Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone’s decision to give a talk about traditional marriage at a June 19 Washington, D.C., rally organized to support marriage.

_A national online petition from Faithful America and a nationally publicized June 10 letter from 78 politicians and others urged the archbishop to withdraw from the March for Marriage in Washington, D.C. The letter and petition citing “hate” speech by the National Organization for Marriage and the labeling participant Family Research Council as a “hate group” created a media storm and disturbed many local Catholics and pastors.

Most are used to attacks on the archbishop for his strong advocacy of the Catholic Church’s teaching on marriage and family, but the reaction seemed disproportionate to the event – which was a talk at a rally by a Catholic Church leader who has given many talks in support of marriage and family across the country and in the media.

The cause for surprise among Catholics may be they assumed the powerful reaction was spontaneous. Now there is abundant evidence the reaction was both well planned and financed by Faithful America, an organization that is supported directly and indirectly by politically powerful and wealthy men and by grant-making foundations who have devoted millions of dollars to promoting acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) behavior....”

It goes on to detail funding via a flow chart and promises two more parts in this series with the next coming out on September 12th. It is rather rare to see something like this come out in a Diocesan newspaper and it is certainly welcome.

Sep 102014

The decision by Cardinal Timothy Dolan regarding the New York St. Patrick’s Day Parade seems to be another Rorschach inkblot test in St. Blogs and elsewhere. Opinions range from the Cardinal being wicked to modeling Christ with a range of positions in-between.

To summarize the situation as I understand it. The private group New York City St. Patrick’s Day Parade Inc. organizes the annual parade has allowed this year a LGBT group to march with a banner. Pressure has been mounting over the last decades or so, but up to now no message banners were allowed. They ran into sponsorship problems last year where companies like Guinness pulled out to due to this general restriction as applied to a specific group the LGBT community. So apparently this year they caved into pressure because of the PC sponsorship problem. There was never a restriction regarding people as described under the initialism of LGBT. To add fuel to the fire, this year Cardinal Dolan is the Grand Marshall.

Added in to this was another smaller controversy. Msgr. Charles Pope had written a post regarding the question “Time to End the St. Patrick’s Parade and the Al Smith Dinners?” At the time I had originally read his very balanced post, there was much I agreed with in general. Subsequently the was post removed.

Many of you have expressed concern about a blog post I wrote on the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, which was removed. I am grateful for your concern about this and all the issues we discuss here. I removed the post upon further reflection due to the strong nature of the language I had used in parts of it. I apologize if the language I used caused offense. Source

It seems likely that he was first asked to remove the post from his Archdiocese. I certainly could find no strong language in his post (which can be read here). At the time I quipped on Facebook that the removal of this post would lead to a minor Striesand effect and that the post would be linked all over the place. Sure enough afterwards I saw this post on more blogs than usual even for the usual quality of the Monsignor’s writings. It even got covered on Brietbart, with a very misleading headlines (or the usual standard for headlines) “DC Priest Punished for Calling For End to Gay St. Patrick’s Parade in New York City”. Can’t say I was impressed with the content of the Austin Rose article which brought in ancillary complaints about the diocese and equated punishment with having a post withdrawn. It also reprinted the Monsignor’s column.

My own opinion concerning this has varied in reaction from wanting to go on full rant to ultimately decide on a waiting period to digest before pushing “post”. I think part of my original strong reaction to what is really a parade that has lost any serious connection to St. Patrick himself as a saint was that the increased pressure on Catholics and others to give up any objection to same-sex acts. Over and over we are getting pressured out of the public square. For example the President’s recent executive order regarding LGBT workplace discrimination with again no religious exemption. Constantly in the headlines are stories regarding fired teachers or organists who had attempted to get married or gotten pregnant using IVF. The mechanisms of society are bent on displaying Catholics as ignorant bigots with no possible defense regarding same-sex acts. Plus combined with the Cardinal’s less than helpful remarks regarding Michael Sam it just seemed like a long retreat from defending Catholic teaching.

Still what it comes down to is my prudential answer to the situation, did not match the Cardinal’s prudential answer to the situation. God is his great wisdom and mercy did not make me a priest or worse a bishop. So while I would rather he step down as Grand Marshall at the minimum, I am not going to freak out over it. I wish he could use it as an opportunity for a “magisterial moment” a play on “teaching moment.” Condensing Catholic teaching or really the natural law down to a sound bite has a high-decibel signal loss where the only information that gets trough is that your a bigot.

After forcing you to read though my reaction, I would like to point you to some pieces that I thought especially good (which means I agreed with them). Interestingly this two pieces are both a reaction to what Elizabeth Scalia at Patheos had to say regarding this situation.

The first being a post from the Darwin’s The Prodigal Son Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means.

The other is Steven Greydanus Gays, Jesus and St. Patrick’s Day. He explores both the analogies and disanalogies of the story of the woman caught in adultery. He also goes on to quote Phil Lawler of CatholicCulture.org:

If this really is a Catholic event, it cannot include a group defined by its opposition to Church teaching. If it is a Catholic event, forget Guinness, forget NBC, forget the hoopla, and quietly honor St. Patrick.

But if it is not a Catholic event — if it is just another civic celebration, to which all are welcome, regardless of their attitude toward the Church — then it’s time to end an anachronism. There should be no reviewing stand outside St. Patrick’s cathedral, no sign of Church sponsorship. Cardinal Dolan should step aside as grand marshal.

Sep 042014

Recently the Boston Globe announced a new Catholic new site “Crux: Covering all things Catholic”.

After their aquistion last year of John L. Allen Jr. as an Associate Editor this move was no surprise and Allen has continued to turn out columns always interesting to read.

Still I wondered how long until Crux was just another National Catholic Reporter. When he worked for them he was pretty much their only redeeming value. News content is being provided by multiple sources such as the Catholic News Service and the Religion News Service. Not a great fan of either, especially RNS and David Gibson.

Today they ran a column by Margery Eagan which was pretty much full National Catholic Reporter mode. Never go full National Catholic Reporter.

  • Reference to inquisition “nunquisition” – check
  • Reference to crusades – check
  • Reference to crackdown – check
  • Dissident nuns are awesome (helping the poor don’t you know) – check
  • Brings up sex abuse crisis – check
  • Makes you dumber reading it – check

You can write articles such as these from a boilerplate template.

What is so idiotic about these articles is they talk about “alleged” complaints by the Vatican when it is so obvious these charges are exactly right. You could side with their dissent, but you can’t call it orthodoxy. It is such a dishonest complaint. Her complaint that the Vatican criticized them for being too Obama-care friendly isn’t even factually correct.

Sep 042014

Many will have already seen the following news:

A news release from the Diocese of Peoria Sept. 3, 2014.

It is with immense sadness that the Most Reverend Daniel R. Jenky, CSC, Bishop of Peoria and President of the Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen Foundation, announced today that the Cause for Sheen’s beatification and canonization has for the foreseeable future been suspended. The process to verify a possible miracle attributed to Sheen had been going extremely well, and only awaited a vote of the Cardinals and the approval of the Holy Father. There was every indication that a possible date for beatification in Peoria would have been scheduled for as early as the coming year. The Holy See expected that the remains of Venerable Sheen would be moved to Peoria where official inspection would be made and first class relics be taken. Subsequently, the Archdiocese of New York denied Bishop Jenky’s request to move the body to Peoria. After further discussion with Rome, it was decided that the Sheen Cause would now have to be relegated to the Congregation’s historic archive.

Countless supporters especially from the local church in Central Illinois have given their time, treasure and talent for this good work with the clear understanding that the body of Venerable Sheen would return to the Diocese. Bishop Jenky was personally assured on several occasions by the Archdiocese of New York that the transfer of the body would take place at the appropriate time. New York’s change of mind took place as the work on behalf of the Cause had reached a significant stage.

Bishop Jenky is what is technically called the “actor” of the Sheen Cause. The Diocese of Peoria and the Sheen Foundation have prayed and labored for this good work for the last twelve years. The Bishop is heartbroken not only for his flock in Peoria but also for the many supporters of the Sheen Cause from throughout the world who have so generously supported Peoria’s efforts. It should be noted, however, that saints are always made by God not by man. Efforts for many causes have sometimes taken decades or even centuries. Bishop Jenky urges that those who support the Sheen Cause continue their prayers that God’s will be made manifest.

No further comment will be released at this time.

What? When I first saw this I thought surely there must be more to the story. What is the Archdiocese of New York’s side of it? Really this couldn’t just be this insane? If it is as it seems to be than this is a great moment in evangelization. The nightly talk show jokes pretty much write themselves. Well at least it isn’t as bad as the Cadaver Synod.

First off if the Archdiocese of New York thought it had primary claim of his body, then exactly why did they not start the cause in the first place. Oh hey let the Diocese of Peoria bear the costs and the investment of time and then have the body as an attraction to draw people.

Although certainly there is a much more charitable way to look at the situation instead of following the money. Then I was shocked when one of my readers sent me a copy of a letter reportedly from the late Cardinal Francis Joseph Spellman. Cardinal Spellman was the Archbishop of New York when Archbishop Sheen was alive. I am providing you with the text of the letter and an image of the actual letter.

Dear Successor:

If in the off chance that Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen ever has a formal cause for sainthood, please sabotage it. That will fix him for not giving me the one million dollars raised for the Society for the Propagation of the Faith and embarrassing me in front of the Pope.

When I said outside the Pope’s office “I will get even with you!” to Archbishop Sheen I wasn’t kidding. If you can please arrange this to happen just before any official Vatican action it would be greatly appreciated.

Wishing you a blessed year, I am

Very sincerely yours,

Archbishop of New York