Punditry

The Arlington Diocese, which includes nearly a half-million Catholics across northern and eastern Virginia, is one of a small but growing number that are starting to demand fidelity oaths. The oaths reflect a churchwide push in recent years to revive orthodoxy that has sharply divided Catholics.

Such oaths are not new for priests or nuns but extend now in some places to people like volunteer Sunday school teachers as well as workers at Catholic hospitals and parish offices.

…

The Arlington “profession of faith” asks teachers to commit to “believe everything” the bishops characterize as divinely revealed, and Arlington’s top doctrine official said it would include things like the bishops’ recent campaign against a White House mandate that most employers offer contraception coverage. Critics consider the mandate a violation of religious freedom.

Articles like this almost make me wish I was a journalist. Instead of actual research and getting quotes I could just write “critics say” followed by anything I wanted to make a point with – that done I could go home after a days work. Yes religious freedom now means you have the right to be a catechist even if you won’t swear to teach what the Church teaches.

So far, out of the diocese’s 5,000 Sunday and parochial school teachers, four are objecting to it and will not take the oath.

So what exactly is objectionable to them? The Profession of Faith simply starts with the Creed and then says:

With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in tradition, which the Church, either by solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely inspired.

I also accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings with either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate whey the exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim theses teachings by a definitive act.

This section is pretty much a restatement of the levels of Church teaching from the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium section 25. Though an actual document from Vatican II doesn’t count since as much as ye ole spirit of Vatican II.

Now as far as these four women saying they can’t take the oath. Well if their conscience seriously objects to it, than that is what they should do. This is much better than those who would swear the oath and not fully mean it. Oath-taking has fallen on hard times across the spectrum from marriages to politicians swearing to defend the Constitution.

One of the women submitted a letter explaining why she won’t take the oath and I don’t think she really explained why she won’t. One of the reasons is that she says it is not even possible to “specify ALL the teachings proposed definitively.” I find this rather lame as if you can know most of them yet the one you might not knows directly is the one you would object to. As if the Church has hidden the definitive teachings making it impossible to know them all without looking at lots of fine print. She says it is “impossible to know” what she is assenting to. Yeah that shows a lot of faith and trust in the Church. Another reason has even less substance in that the “expression of teachings have not reached their fullest expression in the present.” Well if the Magisterium’s deepening understanding in the area of faith and morals makes it so that you can no longer accept the faith at that point, well then resign at that point.

She even goes on to write that “only a person who is willing to abandon her own reason and judgment, or who is wiling to go against the dictates of her own conscience, can agree to sign such a document.” Wow so of the 5,000 catechetical teachers who will sign this document they are all willing to abandon reason and their conscience. Talk about abandoning reason and pure vanity. Being guided by the Magisterium is not abandoning reason since we must fully engage our reason to come to a fuller understanding of Church teaching.

She also says that forcing this issue she will be depriving students of teachers. Well 4 out of 5,000 is not much depriving. Though the 5,000 figure seems awfully high to me. One thing for sure this policy is already working if it keeps teachers like her from poisoning others with such a skeptical view of the Magisterium and the ability to know what she teaches. She treats this oath like a contract with the Devil where you must make sure there are no loopholes that will back-stab you later.

Via Rorate Caeli

Msgr. Charles Pope points out some interesting data from CARA.

You often hear that ex-Catholics would make up one of the largest denominations. Apparently the category of ex-atheist’s make up a larger percentage. This data relates to people raised in an atheist household, not the retention rate of atheists not raised in such households.

But take a special look at that number at the bottom of the pile, yes the very bottom. Atheists “retain” only thirty percent of their “flock.” To quote the CARA blog: And if you think it is challenging to be a Catholic parent, try being an Atheist parent! Some 70% of Americans raised to believe God does not exist end up being a member of a religion as an adult (about one in five former Atheists drift off to become an open-minded agnostic or None).

N.B this number reflects only those raised as Atheists. A large number of Atheists in this Country are “made” in the sense that they were raised to believe but now are Atheists. It remains to study how many of them remain atheists and for how long.

The Monsignor goes on to write why he thinks this is so and of course the comment section is full of outraged atheists. I must applaud Msgr. Pope for the amount of engagement and his many responses to atheists who mainly assert that the study must be flawed (which of course is always possible).

So what we can take from this study and act on is to obviously raise our kids as atheists so that they will later have some form of belief! Hey it worked in my case raised in an atheist household. Well probably not the best approach, but you do have to wonder if atheist parents will complain about the state of atheist catechesis and the problem of backsliding atheists straying into faith.

(source)

A district judge in Cologne, Germany, recently ruled that ritual circumcision is a crime, violating “the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity,” which outweighs other parental and religious rights. “This change runs counter to the interests of the child,” the court concluded, “who can decide his religious affiliation himself later in life.” (source)

Now of course if the mother had chosen to have an abortion and chopping up the child – bodily integrity not so big a deal. So maybe in utero circumcision?

There has been a lot of ink and pixels spilt over the topic of the CDF’s investigation into the LCWR. The large brunt of the media coverage has used the “War on women” narrative as if the fact that the only thing these religious sisters and nuns are guilty of is the crime of being a women and daring to help the poor.

If this narrative is true then why is the Vatican investigating the LCWR and not the parallel group the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR)? After all they are women also and help the poor.

Why does the Vatican investigate women religious who look like this:

pro-abortion Sisters

or

And not ones that look like this:

or

Well the answer might surprise you. It has nothing to do with the fact that orthodox religious women generally wear habit and ones with more dissident tendencies don’t. Nope, no correlation at all.

The real reason the Vatican is “cracking down” on the LCWR and some women theologians in the United States is because they are noticeable as women. Everyone knows the patriarchal all-male hierarchy is totally misogynistic. The thing is that when women religious wear full habits they become invisible to the Vatican and the CDF. Their women parts and hair are totally hidden in their habits and the CDF forgets they are women and thus leave them alone. The LCWR and all the so brave dissident women theologians are instantly viewed obviously as women without the covering habits.

Now these habit-less religious women did try some camouflage by wearing pantsuits, but this did not go far enough to fool the CDF. This did not work even with the attempts at mannish hairstyles.

Here is Sister Simone Campbell making the classic mistake in not hiding herself in a habit and thus opening herself up to crackdowns from CDF troops.

In fact I expect the CDF paratroopers to descend from the skies and put a stop to this bus tour any day now. After all the signs should say “Religious Sisters on a Bus” and not “Nuns on the Bus.” There should certainly be fines for those who continue to confuse the terms nuns and sisters.

You just got to love the priorities of these women religious:

• Federal money for abortion – No need to organize a bus tour.
• Catholics being forced out of adoption and helping victims of human trafficking – Nope no bus tour needed.
• Attack on our religious freedom and forced support of intrinsic evils – No need for a bus tour.
• A Republican budget that is going nowhere – Organize a tour immediately.

You sometimes run across this quote from Gandhi:

“I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Though I must admit this quote annoys me. While it makes a valid point about the behavior of some Christians and a warning to all of us – I find it too dismissive. I don’t mind at all the reminder that I must be more like Christ, a reminder I can always use.

I am glad that he found so many examples of perfect Hindu’s that did not cause him such alarm for his own faith.

One thing the statement is so dismissive of is the various martyrs and saints – the exemplars of the faith – those who truly followed Christ. They are just passed over because of those who don’t as closely follow Christ. Judging anything by the people who don’t exemplify something is a rather poor test. Like judging mathematics based on poor math students.

It also reminds me of one of Chesterton’s quotes:

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”

Gandhi himself was influenced by the writings of G.K. Chesterton, at least in regards to Indian independence. I can’t speak to Gandhi’s personal rejection of Christianity – I just don’t find his stated reasons very compelling.

For example:

…to be a good Hindu also meant that I would be a good Christian. There is no need for me to join your creed to be a believer in the beauty of the teachings of Jesus or try to follow His example.

Yeah that is why there were so many Hindus there in the streets of Calcutta helping out the poorest of the poor before Blessed Mother Teresa arrived. Plus Gandhi’s statement makes no sense in that he says he can be a good Christian without trying to follow Jesus’s example. That you admit to a beauty of a teaching you won’t follow just displays a nebulous understanding of the truth of those teachings.

The Washington Post breathlessly asks “Who’s funding the Catholic bishops’ religious freedom campaign?” Shockingly it appears to be mostly the Knights of Columbus. Yeah that’s really newsworthy. I guess we will have to send out the albino monk assassins to take care of that leak.

Though of course the Washington Post is strangely incurious about the Soros funded group in opposition to the Fortnight for Freedom campaign.

Mondays are usually not the best of days, but I was quite joyous to see that Leah Libresco of the “Unequally Yoked” blog announced that she was now attending RCIA and that she was moving her blog from the atheist portal on Patheos to the Catholic portal.

The “Unequally Yoked” blog was in part based or her disputes with there Catholic boyfriend. This is of course not the first time somebody arguing with a Catholic spouse or boy/girlfriend to get them out of Catholicism turns about. I think of Jimmy Akin’s conversion story for one. Or even in the case of my own conversion story since my wife was a cradle Catholic while I was a cradle Atheist.

It is always rather interesting when an atheist blogger comes over to the “dark side”. This was true in the case of the former “Raving Atheist” blog, Jennifer Fulwiler, and now Leah’s blog with hundreds of resulting comments.

Now it is quite easy to fall into the us vs. them divide and seeing a conversion as a win for our team. Kind of like the Protestant verbiage of “winning a soul for Christ” and keeping score. The personal story is easily lost in such a view. For anyone who had been a life-long atheist up to that point coming to belief is quite difficult and even more so when done in a public way. There is that private interrogation when first you suspect that you are leaving atheism behind and have come to belief in God. That private interrogation can be quite rough and quite scary as you question your motives and try to verify the use of reason that has brought you to this point. Atheism for me had become a crutch and a reason not to repent of my sins. Belief in God is more than realizing that your Sundays now have a recurring event for the rest of your lives. The real recurring event is continual repentance and that is quite annoying when your previous refrain was “I am only human.”

Going from atheism to Catholicism is kind of like a rags to riches story. From having nothing in the spiritual life to the riches of what the Catholic faith delivers. So many saints, so many devotions, and oh so many books! I look back at all my years as an atheist with a certain fondness in that I was striving for the truth despite bumbling around like Mr. Magoo. It is hard to describe the joy of being Catholic despite all the challenges. To find that you could actually overcome sins that you had pretty much given up on despite periodic applications of stoicism. But coming into relationship with Jesus is what is the most joyous. The ride on his back as the lost sheep being returned to the hold is wonderful ride.

There are some advantages of going from atheism to Catholicism compared to conversion from Protestantism. For one once you get over the “yeah there is a God” thing all the Catholic distinctive are much easier to grasp. Not having the Protestant prejudices towards Catholicism makes some of the faith much easier to learn. The fact that the Catholic faith is symphonic and that all the truths of the faith interlock and support each other you are constantly awed in this new understanding that just becomes stronger over the years. There are certainly atheist prejudices that have to be overcome such as what a big lie the Church vs. science meme is. I am quite happy that Leah Libresco will miss out on the theism phase. Coming to belief in God for me did not mean instantly embracing the Catholic Church, it was some years of first a general theism and then movement towards the Catholic Church after reading much of the religious section at the library.

So welcome home Leah!

The National Catholic Register reports on “comments and objections raised by several bishops” at the USCCB meeting in Atlanta that “challenged the specificity of some heavily publicized statements”, such as Bishop Blair’s criticisms in April of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget:

“There have been some concerns raised by lay Catholics, especially some Catholic economists, about what was perceived as a partisan action against Congressman Ryan and the budget he had proposed,” said Bishop Boyea. That statement “didn’t really further dialogue in our deeply divided country.”

In his view, statements that endorsed specific economic policies revealed a lack of “humility.” He told the assembly, “We need to learn far more than we need to teach in this area. We need to listen more than we need to speak. We already have an excellent, fine Compendium [of the Social Doctrine of the Church].”

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., agreed that the committee was “at times perceived as partisan” and neglected the principle of subsidiarity, which calls for solutions that can be provided close to people in need.

Archbishop Naumann suggested that drafters of the statement needed to rethink a tendency to advocate for government assistance, and he said that the conference’s proposals should not ignore the ballooning national deficit.

“Sometimes we’re perceived as just encouraging the government to spend more money, with no realistic way of how we’re going to afford to do this,” he observed.

A third statement, by Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit, echoed Archbishop Naumann’s suggestion that the proposed document focus more on the family as the central social institution and spoke of how the “disintegration of the family” had fueled the demand for government assistance.

Carl E. Olson is referencing this piece in the National Catholic Register and goes on to quote on subsidiarily from the Catechism. He goes on to conclude:

The irony, I suppose, is that when the bishops and the USCCB weigh in on policy details and areas demanding expertise beyond what they possess as pastors and shepherds, they themselves violate the principle of subsidiarity.

In many ways the USCCB in action violates subsidiarity. Often it seems to me that things that should be done by individual bishops is kicked upstairs to let the USCCB as a whole make tough decisions. But of course committees seldom make such decisions and usually just end up making cover or they get hijacked from some segment’s hobby horse.

I like Bishop’s Boyea statement on learning about the area of economics and really when it gets down to prudential appliance of Catholic social teaching in this area this is not exactly an area of competence for the Bishops. Though too often it is not an area of competence for much of the laity either. As for Archbishop Naumann’s statement in regards to the “disintegration of the family” fueling the demand for government assistance, this also is a major factor related to poverty.

One thing about the Federal Government that provides such a temptation is it supplies a central point of focus and seems to make things much easier. It is easier to lobby the House than to have to lobby so many communities, cities and states. Subsidiarity is quickly forgotten with this large lobbying target. The temptation to be able to fix everything if only you could get the Federal legislation you want to work these wonders. Tip O’Neils phrase “All politics is local” is only partly true in that unfortunately all local politics seem to be heard towards the Federal level and the promise of extracting Federal dollars. In subsidiarily all politics should mostly be local and that each level has its area of competence.

Two altar girls (19 and 20 years old) break into a punch-up fight about who would carry the censer. It is now going to court.

I guess they were incensed against each other and their behavior should be “censered”.

Via cathcon

The news broke Friday that Sr. Carol Keehan of the Catholic Healthcare Association (CHA) has broken with the Obama administration’s plan to force abortion drugs and contraception on religious institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities that offer medical insurance.

The dramatic move was announced in a 5-page letter (PDF here) signed by Keehan and two CHA board members.
The move is momentous because Keehan famously broke with the U.S. bishops to endorse the original passage of the administration’s Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) and then broke with them again to endorse the Department of Health and Human Services abortion drug and contraception mandate, providing political cover for the administration.

Both acts were widely criticized, and it appeared to many that Sr. Keehan was a willing tool of the administration’s “divide and conquer” strategy for dealing with the Catholic community–playing the role of an alternative Catholic authority that could be pitted against and thus neutralize the voice of he bishops.

But she is not so willing today, it seems, and the new move must come across to the administration as an act of betrayal of it and its agenda.

Jimmy Akin goes on to give a history of what Sr. Keehan has said in the past along with an analysis of the current letter.

The letter from the CHA is certainly an improvement on what they have said in the past, but it certainly lacks some moral clarity in regards to cooperation with evil. In regards to this I refer to Jimmy Akin’s look at one of the sections.

It also brings up another question about broadening the current narrowly defined HHS mandate to be more in line with the religious exemption in the past. Likely if this had been done in the first place there would not have been the sustained outcry that resulted. It would have still been a forced violation of the conscience of some employers who did not fall into this category. In some ways it is a good thing the Obama Administration so overstep themselves in that it might go on to protect the consciences of this category also.

This article makes the same point: Hey CHA: Catholics who run non-religious businesses are people, too.

Now what I want to know is if Sr. Carol Keehan will return her Obamacaare signing pen to the Obama Administration. If so they could buy a potter field with it.