Punditry

Via Frank Weathers.

Although my opposing war in Syria surely means I must be racist.

I just don’t get why the media and some Catholics are calling this a “selfie.”

Oxford Dictionaries Online’s quarterly update defined selfie as “a photograph that one has taken of oneself, typically one taken with a smartphone or webcam and uploaded to a social media website.”

This is more of a “groupie.”

It is bad enough that we have terms like this and then don’t even use them correctly.

The media though always like pictures that they think are somewhat ironic when it comes to the Pope, bishops, priests, and those in religious life. Show them doing something “normal” and somehow it is news.

Still I like the picture itself which no doubt is much better than the one taken on that cell phone at arms length.

A couple of years ago Steven D. Greydanus wrote an excellent essay A House Divided: Broken Homes, Flying Houses, Divorce, and Death in Family Fantasy Films. I thought that what he had to say was dead on. Some of the movies he discussed were based on children’s books.

During the summer the site Sync offers YA literature in audiobook formats. Each week during this time they usually have a fairly recent YA fiction audiobook and one of more classic literature. What I have noticed of the YA fiction are some similarities to what Mr. Greydanus wrote. In the last couple of years I can’t think of one book I read or listened to in this genre that actually had an intact family. If the children were not orphans than it was usually the case that they only had a mother or rarer only a father.

Such a contrast between classics such as the ones written by Madeleine L’Engle. I had been reading through the Kairos first-generation books and looking at the other YA books I have read in the last couple of years there is quite a contrast. Now many Fantasy novels have had the trope of the orphan who becomes the hero partly out of revenge. Now though it just seems that there must be a broken family regardless of the setting of the novel.

The other thing I have noticed is just how much deception and lying is part of these plots. Children lie and deceive either their one parent, whoever is taking care of them, or some authority figure. There is almost never a lesson learned in this and some resulting character development. The children/young adults “know better” and just have to do this for some apparent good. Moral relativism is the status quo even for the heroic figure. While I enjoyed the Harry Potter novels, the amount of lying that Harry does throughout and with no apparent consequences is an aspect that annoyed me.

Another common thread in many of these YA novels is just how dark they are or how often it involves the death of young adults. The situations contrived call for this to happen and becomes a major part of the plot as for example “The Hunger Games” trilogy. Dystopian futures seem to dominate.

Now I can understand various plot tensions and how conflict is a necessary part of a story. Yet this was done before without a dominance of broken families and gloomy futures. Maybe I am just getting older and instead of saying “Get off my lawn” I am saying “get off my bookshelf.”

While I am unable to eloquently write about these trends I see, I do wonder if others have noticed the same?

The following article has been making the rounds recently that was previously released on May 14, 2013 at the Bellarmine Forum.

A stranger came into the sacristy after Sunday Mass. In an incriminating huff he said, “I have been away from the area for fifteen years; where are the people? And now you are tearing down the school? I went there as a kid.” I put my hands up to quiet him from further talking and I calmly said, “Let me ask you a question: How many kids did you have?” He said, “Two.” Then I said, “So did everyone else. When you only have two kids per family there is no growth.” His demeanor changed, and then he dropped his head and said, “And they aren’t even going to Mass anymore.”

I never thought I would be asking that question, but since I had to close our parish school, I’ve grown bolder and I started to ask that question more often. When I came to my parish five years ago, the school was on its proverbial “last legs.” In its last two years we did everything we could to recruit more students, but eventually I had to face the fact that after 103 years of education the school was no longer viable. In one of the pre-closure brain-storming sessions with teachers, I was asked what to do to get more students. I replied, “Well, I know what to do, but it takes seven years.” The older teachers laughed, but the others needed me to state the obvious to the oblivious, viz. we need more babies. In my January 2010 letter to my bishop asking his permission to close our school, I wrote:

Bishop, it is with a heavy heart that I request this of you. As you know, priests were not ordained to be closing grade schools, but we were ordained to be Christ in the midst of sorrow and pain, which will be happening as we come to accept both your decision and the inevitable fact that St. Mary’s Grade School is no longer viable. The efficient cause is simple….no children. The first cause is the habitual contraception and sterilization mentality of a good portion of married Catholic Christians–in short the Culture of Death. The final cause is the closure of Catholic Schools and parishes. Bishop, we need your leadership to address the contraception/abortion/sterilization mentality in as forceful a way as soon as possible.

I, and St. Mary’s, closed the school that May 2010. Now three years later, I am razing the school building. It breaks my heart every time I go into this closed school. It is only 50 years old and yes, the windows and heating are in need of replacement, but otherwise the building is in good shape. You could not build as solid a building these days. There has not been a week without someone bringing the school closure and now razing up to me and how sad it is. But the cost of insurance and the cost of heating an empty building has become too burdensome for an aging and a decreasing congregation. A part of this decrease has happened because I have preached against the Culture of Death. I have modestly preached against contraception and sterilization, but for many of my parishioners it is too late. Most of them are done with raising more children. They have had their two kids twenty, thirty, forty years ago and some women don’t want to hear about the Culture of Death. They decide to go to other parishes where the pastor doesn’t prick their consciences. I am reminded of a diocesan official in his talk to us young pro-life, pro-family priests twenty years ago. He said, “Yes, you can preach against abortion and contraception, but remember, you have to put a roof over your churches.” Now, our diocese is closing and merging these same parishes, but you know what—they all have good roofs.

Pastors, if the demographic winter or bomb seems someone else’s problem, try this at your parish as I recently did at mine. I took the last ten burials and printed out their obituaries. At Sts. Peter and Paul Cemetery we had six men and four women with an average age of 80 years. With the ten, I counted the number of siblings for a total of 45 and divided by 10 which came to 4.5 children per family. Then I counted the ten’s children and divided by ten. The next generation had 28 kids which I divided by ten and came to 2.8 per family. I then moved on to the third generation, the grandchildren. These ten deceased had 48 grandchildren from their 28 children. When dividing these numbers, I came to a figure of 1.714 per family. The national average number of children per household is 1.91 (cf. ); while the replacement level is 2.1 children per family.

This priest perspective matches my own regarding the so-called vocation crisis and the connection to contraception and abortion.

The same day Pharaoh commanded the taskmasters of the people and their foremen, “You shall no longer give the people straw to make bricks, as heretofore; let them go and gather straw for themselves. But the number of bricks which they made heretofore you shall lay upon them, you shall by no means lessen it; for they are idle; therefore they cry, ‘Let us go and offer sacrifice to our God.’ Let heavier work be laid upon the men that they may labor at it and pay no regard to lying words.” (Ex 5:6–9)

Then the foremen of the people of Israel came and cried to Pharaoh, “Why do you deal thus with your servants? 16 No straw is given to your servants, yet they say to us, ‘Make bricks!’ (Ex 5:15–16)

What the Pharaoh did certainly has a parallel with our own attitudes. We have withdrawn the straw by not being open to children and then complain about the lack of priests. While it is certainly true to some degree that there is a problem of men not being ope to their priestly vocation, small Catholic families certainly exasperates the problem. We demand that God “makes bricks” while not having children or encouraging possible vocations for the children we do have.

On my own part I had totally boughten into the population problem and was proud to have had two children and a subsequent vasectomy at the ripe age of 25. As an atheist I had elevated selfishness to a virtue. I even wanted to spread the “good news” of a vasectomy and even convinced a co-worker to get one. Unfortunately it looks like my selfish and very secular viewpoint was replicated in many Catholic households. The fact that many shared my mindset does not make me feel any better about it and is one of my greatest regrets.

Still it is one thing to complain about this problem, but what do we need to do going ahead to rectify this mindset?

After Humanae Vitae it seems that contraception has become the third rail that hardly anybody wants to touch. Rampant dissent became the accepted view. The media constantly reminds us that the majority of Catholics dissent on this. The media’s inflated percentage does not take the sting out of the fact that so many Catholics approach Communion while contracepting. Having the intrinsic evil of contraception actually mentioned in a homily from time to time might be a good start, but really a ton of both/ands need to happen. Really this requires an “all hands on deck” reaction with the laity, priests, bishops, and those in religious life.

And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer and fasting.” (Mk 9:29)

Unfortunately we must still think we are wedding guests with the bridegroom amongst us and so we ’eat and drink” and even worse don’t even think contraception is a problem in the first place.

Photo credit: Chris Devers, cc

More and more it seems to me that dialogue means never having to say you’re sorry. That dialogue becomes just another delaying tactic for revisionists.

When the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) met in its annual assembly Aug. 13–16 in Orlando, Fla., the main topic of business was how the sisters would respond to a 2012 mandate of reform from the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). The LCWR is a canonically erected superiors’ organization of nearly 1,400 sisters who are leaders of about 80% of the women religious in this country.

Interest in their 2013 assembly was heightened by the presence of the Vatican’s apostolic delegate charged with conducting the reform, Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle. He had offered to attend the LCWR 2012 assembly to discuss the mandate that had come out April 18 of that year, but had been told then by LCWR leaders that his presence “would not be helpful.”

This year, Archbishop Sartain addressed the entire membership ‘n a closed session and fielded questions about the mandate from LCWR members. He also met with the LCWR’s 21-member national board during the first of three days of board meetings after the assembly closed.

However, the only decision announced by LCWR in an Aug. 19 press release was simply to continue talking with Archbishop Sartain and Bishops Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Ill., and Leonard Blair of Toledo, Ohio, who the Vatican appointed to assist him.

Now the question is: How long is the CDF willing to have the apostolic delegates continue those conversations when the LCWR has not yet agreed to any of the reforms mandated in the doctrinal assessment?

That eight-page mandate is very explicit and readily available on the Internet, even though some LCWR members have claimed that they don’t know the details of the document. Among issues identified in the mandate are areas of “corporate dissent,” “serious theological, even doctrinal errors,” various “theological interpretations that risk distorting faith in Jesus and his loving Father” and commentaries that “undermine the revealed doctrines of the Holy Trinity, the divinity of Christ and the inspiration of sacred Scripture.”

The mandate directs the bishop delegates to take no more than five years to direct a revision of the LCWR’s statutes; review and reform LCWR plans and programs; create LCWR programs to help member congregations receive deeper formation in Church doctrine; review and guide application of liturgical norms and texts; and review LCWR links with the affiliated organizations NETWORK and Resource Center for Religious Institutes.

Reportedly, several meetings and/or teleconferences between the bishop delegates and LCWR leaders took place over the past year, but no information has leaked out. From all indications, none of the mandated reforms have yet begun, even something as simple as taking the LCWR “Systems Thinking Handbook ” off the LCWR website. The CDF mandate had directed that publication to be “withdrawn from circulation, pending revision.” (source)

Right now I am reading Sisters in Crisis Revisited: From Unraveling to Reform and Renewal by Ann Carey (who also wrote this article here). This book revisits and updates her previous book on the subject and is both an informative and sad read concerning some of this history. Dialogue as a delaying tactic is clearly a method used by the LCWR and its previous incarnation from the Sixties onward. Enter into dialogue and just keep doing what you have been doing. A waiting game where you hope the other side blinks and then you just keep truckin’ on as if nothing had happened. When dealing with dissent the Vatican plays the long game (often necessarily), but in the meantime the damage continues.

… The press release for the 2013 assembly included an excerpt from her presidential address in which she said that, relative to the doctrinal assessment, the LCWR’s “situation reflects larger questions and concerns,” including “understandings of authority, faithful dissent and obedience and the need for spaces where honest, probing questions about faith and belief can be raised and discussed.”

It would seem that dialogue about doctrinal matters with the Vatican delegates will be very challenging when the sisters claim the right to “faithful dissent” and their own understandings of faith, ecclesial authority and religious obedience.

Call me very pessimistic about a true reform of the LCWR. This pessimism is towards the “leadership” of the LCWR and not necessarily towards the member organizations. Many women in religious life have their belief’s represented by the LCWR just as much as President Obama’s beliefs represent my own.

Msgr. Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington is really rather hesitant about blogging on hot button topics. Having recently posted on the Liturgy considering Ad Orientum with Are We Walking to Heaven Backward? A Pastoral Consideration of Liturgical “orientation.” he now posts this. Going from liturgical orientation to another type of “orientation” with District of Columbia Cancels Appearance of Gospel Artist due to Views on Homosexuality. Who Will be Next?

Homosexual activists and advocates often state that they merely want recognition and certain legal rights, and that churches and other objectors to their life style remain free to have their opinions and state them in a free culture. And any expressed fears regarding compulsory recognition or punitive measures directed against objectors are dismissed as fear mongering.

Never mind that these fears are based in real experiences in Canada and Europe where clergy have been arrested and fined for presenting the biblical case against homosexuality in the pulpits of their own churches or the pages of their bulletins.

In the end we who raise alarms about the increasingly strident declaration of our objections as “hate speech” and as “human rights violations” remain concerned about legal punishment etc., despite “reassurances” from pro-homosexual advocates and government officials.

Today there is more confirmation about the price that is paid by those who object to the cultural juggernaut that activism is becoming. Gospel Artist Donnie McClurkin has had his appearance canceled by the Mayor’s Office here in DC due to his views on homosexuality. Here is the clip from a local Station, Fox 5 News:

Gospel star Donnie McClurkin made headlines several years ago, when he claimed god “delivered” him from homosexuality.

Now, he’s sounding off about a decision by D.C. leaders, to cancel his appearance at a concert over the weekend.

McClurkin was set to perform at a concert on Saturday, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.

In a video, McClurkin says he was on his way to the airport, when Mayor Vincent Gray’s office called him to tell him his appearance was cancelled.

“These are bully tactics simply because of stances that I took, never ever demeaning, never ever derogatory, any lifestyle – this is a civil rights infringement situation,” McClurkin said. [1]

It is bad enough for someone to disagree with the secular orthodoxy regarding homosexual acts, but for someone with same-sex attraction to do so is apostasy! The Mannish Inquisition will brook no opposition to the teaching that those with same-sex attraction will always have the same level of SSA. “You are born that way and that’s that!” While it certainly might be true that many that suffer with SSA will always have some level of this attraction, it is apparently not true for all cases.

The idea of punishing people for their opinion is of course nothing new. There is always a minority of people who won’t attend a movie or a concert because of the beliefs of one or more people involved regarding their personal life. What is happening here though is a mainstreaming and government shunning of either those like McClurkin who claim to no longer have SSA or simply those who call homosexual acts sinful along with homosexual marriage. For example those who would boycott the big screen adaptation of “Ender’s Game” because the author of the book Orson Scott Card opposes same-sex marriage. In the recent opinion on DOMA authored by Justice Kennedy we were declared “Enemies of the Human Race” for holding such a view.

… But the point to be raised and discussed here is not a legal point but a cultural and moral one. Actions like these put to the lie any notion that homosexual activists merely seek to inculcate respect. They intend much more. Namely to destroy any dissent, marginalize and increasingly coerce consent for their agenda, and apply state sanctioned exclusion for any one who dares question their behavior.

The exclusion of Mr. McClurkin is only another step. Invited clergy are probably already being screened and excluded from any place on any dais if they do not have the politically correct view on this. Exclusions and restrictions are sure to increase and become more severe.

It is a common feature that radicals who march under the banner of tolerance and “libertas!” soon enough usher in their own reign of terror. Because when they say “tolerance” they don’t really mean it and certainly don’t mean they have to tolerate you. For them “tolerance” means your obligation to accept them, and freedom is your right and liberty to agree with whatever they say.

There seems to be absolutely no leeway that will in any way be granted. They will not, it seems, even brook the notion that for many who oppose the celebration of homosexual acts, the opposition is a matter of sincere conscience, not “hate.” If quoting the Bible or the Catechism equals hate, then night has surely come to the West. But we can do no other than adhere to God’s clear and consistent teaching all through the Scriptures at every stage which consigns homosexual acts to the realm of sin. Here I must stay, I can do no other. I will not overrule God to please men, gain access, or be considered acceptable to government officials and powerful lobby groups.

Now that these cultural radicals are politically ensconced the banners of tolerance and freedom are discarded. They never really meant it, and sure never meant the likes of Mr. McClurkin or other bible-believing Christians who object.

These exclusionary tactics are bound to increase and to become more punitive unless enough Americans begin to wake up and realize that all the talk about “tolerance” is not really what this agenda of the radicals has ever been about.

Rainbows may seem pretty, but they usually occur in the midst of a storm. This storm looks to get a lot worse.

There is a conference this weekend at the Eastern Michigan University’s Student center entitled “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?” This symposium was coordinated by Al Kresta of Ave Maria Radio.

Featured debaters will be Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch.org facing off against Shadid Lewis, regional director of the Muslim Debate Initiative in the US, on the question “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”

Muslim columnist for the Turkish News Mustafa Akyol will debate Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center on “Can Islam Support Religious Liberty?

So this is not a one-sided discussion of the topic, but a debate regarding the question.

Only recently has there been really any coverage of this event. Of course most of the coverage surrounds Robert Spencer.

There is an interesting disparity in coverage here to some extent regarding the giddy greeting the book “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth” by Reza Aslan has caused.

Nathan Lean from Aslan Media (Reza Aslan) follows Robert Spencer around the country trying to get him banned from speaking. Lean has succeeded on two occasions due to a failure of leadership, but his charges are bogus. He stirs up emotion and fear while painting Robert as a hate-monger. As Ave Maria Radio prepares for its Symposium Debate this weekend Nathan Lane is at it again. He attempted to intimidate Eastern Michigan University, the venue of the event, and us. He has failed. Apparently he believes the Muslims that are taking part in the debates are ill-equipped to defend their religious beliefs – and his. We do not . Join us as we prove that difficult topics can be debated without resorting to mane-calling and intimidation techniques.

Robert Spencer has not got quite the warm attention from the media that Aslan has got, in fact really in attention he gets is to paint him as an “Anti-Muslim bigot.” While really the only headlines calling Aslan “Anti-Christian” mostly come from a rhetorical question in a Time magazine headline that answers the question that he is not.

The very unscholarly methods that Aslan used and the many mistakes he makes only prove that when it comes to Christianity and the media any stick will do.

When Robert Spencer wrote in 2012 the book “Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins” there was a total lack of interest in it by the media. Skeptical scholars often date the books in the New Testament as late as possible (usually after 70 AD, and Aslan dates them a decade after that), it is interesting that we never hear any similar conjecture regarding the Koran. There is currently no collaborating historical information about the life of Muhammad in anything close to the time he was suppose to live other than the Koran. So it is interesting that the doubts that Aslan counts on Christianity as to what the historical facts our that the problem is much worse for the historicity of the Koran. I bring this up only to highlight the disparity in coverage.

Yet for some reason I suspect that Reza Aslan will be banned from entering the UK like Robert Spencer was. Spencer for critically looking at the Koran and it’s history is a anti-Mulsim bigot and purveyor of hate-speech while Reza Aslan is a “brilliant scholar” who just happens to discredit Christianity.

While many would discredit Reza Aslan because he is Muslim, this probably is not actually very relevant in this case. Considering the fact that Reza Aslan accepts as true that Jesus was crucified, which the Koran rejects. Probably more of a nominal-Muslim as his family background also suggests. Still he has an employee that seems intent on shutting down any debate regarding Islam. Now that would be an interesting question for an interviewer to ask Aslan what he thinks of his employees actions to shut down debate? Especially since this employee is editor-in-chief of Aslan Media. I won’t hold my breath on that one.

Here is a typical example of the smear job towards Robert Spenser (who is a Catholic Deacon).

Patricia Montemurri for the Detroit Free Press:

The symposium, which will be held in the student union, will feature pro-Muslim speakers, too. But Spencer’s appearance is controversial. The New York Times reported that Spencer’s comments were cited 64 times by the Norwegian white supremacist who killed 76 people in Norway in 2011. Spencer was banned from the United Kingdom in June for what the British government said was his association with hate groups.

As Robert Spencer notes:

In writing this, Montemurri implies that “the Norwegian white supremacist” was inspired to white supremacism and murder by me. In reality, Anders Behring Breivik’s “manifesto” cites not just me, but many, many people, including Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, and Thomas Jefferson — who are just three of the many who are never blamed for his murders. Montemurri also doesn’t mention, and probably doesn’t know, since the editor-in-chief of Reza Aslan’s Aslan Media didn’t tell her, that Breivik’s manifesto actually reflects an ideology quite different from mine: so far was he from being a doctrinaire counter-jihadist that he wanted to aid Hamas and ally with jihad groups. Nor does she mention (or know, probably) that Breivik criticized me in his insane “manifesto” for not advocating violence. I am no more responsible for Breivik than the Beatles are for Charles Manson.

And as for the British ban, the fact that Montemurri even mentions it shows how these smears retailed by the editor-in-chief of Reza Aslan’s Aslan Media are self-reinforcing. As a result of smears and defamation from Aslan’s counterparts in Britain, my colleague Pamela Geller and I were banned from entering that country. The Home Office’s letter banning me from entering the country said I was being banned for saying that Islam has a doctrine mandating warfare against unbelievers, which it manifestly and demonstrably does indeed have. A preacher of that doctrine, the Saudi Sheikh Mohammed al-Arifi, was recently admitted into the UK. He has said: “Devotion to Jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer.” Yet I who advocate no violence or hatred of any kind am not allowed in. This is hardly a blot on my record; it is a blot on Britain’s.

Reference: 14 things you need to know about the new book Zealot

Austria’s Catholic Church is trying a new strategy to attract the faithful: advertising its churches as places to cool off in a record heatwave.

As Austrians sweltered in temperatures close to 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit), Catholic news agency Kathpress surveyed the country’s houses of worship Tuesday to find the coolest one.

“When air conditioning and the cool wetness of a lake or open-air pool are beyond reach, Austria’s churches can provide cool and spiritual refreshment at the same time,” it said.

Vienna’s chilliest church was a mere 24 degrees, with the crypt of St. Stephen’s Cathedral a frigid 14 degrees, Kathpress’s survey found.

(source)

First off I always knew Catholic churches were cooler.

So we have gone from preaching hellfire and damnation to preaching of an available cool climate? Still maybe this is innovative advertising to get them in the church door to be evangelized?

Although I find it rather cheesy and off-putting.

Perhaps some of their rejected ad mottos were:

• Turn the dog days of Summer into the God days of Summer.
• Hell is hot, our church is not
• Why not get both AC and JC?
• Jesus will set you freon.

You know I am really starting to think that Pope Francis does not like the model of the Church being like another NGO (Non-governmental organization).

Here are just some examples:

We may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord.

We are not an NGO, and when the Church becomes an NGO she loses her salt, she has no savour, she is only an empty organization.

The parishes, the schools, the institutions are made for going out … if they don’t, they become an NGO, and the Church cannot be an NGO.

A functionalist approach has no room for mystery; it aims at efficiency. It reduces the reality of the Church to the structure of an NGO.

The Church is an institution, but when she makes herself a “centre”, she becomes merely functional, and slowly but surely turns into a kind of NGO.

The Church – I repeat once again – is not a relief organization, an enterprise or an NGO, but a community of people, animated by the Holy Spirit, who have lived and are living the wonder of the encounter with Jesus Christ and want to share this experience of deep joy, the message of salvation that the Lord gave us. It is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church in this path.

These are important corrections to one of the major errors of our time. Of reducing the salvific mission of the Church to just merely social work. Yet this flattening of the Church seems to me to be quite common in so many organizations tied to the Church. A narrowing and political secularization that looses sight of preaching the Gospel. Organizations willing to make compromises in promoting what they now see as their main mission. A loss of the fullness of the Catholic faith with not much both/and-ing going on. An easy temptation to fall into when pursuing a worthy cause and subsequently loosing sight of the larger context of the great commission.

Blessed Mother Teresa put this quite well when she said:

Without out suffering, our work would just be social work, very good and helpful, but it would not be the work of Jesus Christ, not part of the Redemption. All the desolation of the poor people, not only their material poverty, but their spiritual destitution, must be redeemed. And we must share it, for only by being one with them can we redeem them by bringing God into their lives and bringing them to God.

This is I think the same problem the Pope identifies in seeing the Church as just another NGO. This is a no go.