Punditry

When it comes to bigoted anti-Catholics ads this one takes the cake even for the New York Times.  If atheists published Chick Tracts this is what they would look like.  Though maybe Chick Tracts are downright ecumenical compared to this.

\\

Full text at the Creative Minority Report.

I find it also rather interesting in a strange way.  For one they seem to consider  liberal Catholics to be brothers-in-arms and rightly calls them dissenters.  There is some truth to this understanding as atheists have a moral worldview quite similar to dissenting Catholics.  If by their fruits will you know them how can you differentiate the fruits of dissenting Catholics from secularist atheists?  Exactly what would divide them as far as practice goes besides the obvious belief vs. unbelief in God.  When it comes to the issues of the day they are locked step in agreement.  Moral relativism with no foundation in unchanging truth embraces both camps.

Reading through this screed I really can’t see where there view departs from dissenting Catholics and lines like “Why are you propping up the pillars of a tyrannical and autocratic, woman-hating, sex-perverting, antediluvian Old Boys Club?” could easily appear in the National Catholic Reporter.  Funny though how these atheists are upset about the lack of women priests when they don’t even believe in God.

In some ways though this ad asks the right questions.  Why are dissenting Catholics who have such a negative view of the Church and who disagree on foundational questions remaining Catholics?  The Protestant reformation did not start out to leave the Catholic Church, but they came to understand that their ecclesiology and theology was such a departure that they were forced to leave.  As incorrect as this understanding was, it at least had a follow through in measure with their beliefs.

If you imagine you can change the church from within — get it to lighten up on birth control, gay rights, marriage equality, embryonic stem-cell research — you are deluding yourself. If you remain a “good Catholic,” you are doing “bad” to women’s rights. You’re kidding yourself if you think the Church is ever going to add a Doctrine of Immaculate ContraCeption.

Now here is a back-handed compliment if I have ever seen one. This groups has a better understanding of the Church than dissenters do. The Church indeed is never going to change one of dogmas whether it concerns hot buttons issues or more obscure points of theology. The Church is never going to u-turn on her magisterial teachings because truth itself is unchanging. We can come to a better understanding, but not a reverse understanding.

The Amish, as Pollitt points out, don’t label cars “an assault on religious liberty” and try to force everyone to drive buggies. The louder the Church cries “offense against religious liberty” the harder it works to take away women’s liberty.

I guess they didn’t realize how ironic their example is since the Amish are exempt from Obamacare which is all that faithful Catholics are also requesting. As usual liberals are irony-deficient in framing the debate as a forcing of beliefs while they attempt a Borg like assimilation forced at the arm of government that extends with a fist.

Now the actual question of why dissenters remain Catholics is not going to be answered here. People are quite complex and their are no one theory fits all explanations. There are complexities of culture which include tribal Catholicism along with aspects of being drawn by grace. I’m certainly glad that God didn’t give up on me as a once very liberal atheist. While I might wonder why dissenters remain in the Church and don’t follow their ideology into Anglican/Episcopalian channel I still pray for them to come into a fuller understanding and love of the Church that Christ gave us. They might be wrong about the Church’s teaching, but they are not wrong that this indeed is the Church.

I am currently reading through the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church and I thought these paragraphs quite appropriate concerning the HHS mandate.

398. Authority must enact just laws, that is, laws that correspond to the dignity of the human person and to what is required by right reason. “Human law is law insofar as it corresponds to right reason and therefore is derived from the eternal law. When, however, a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; in such a case it ceases to be law and becomes instead an act of violence”.[816] Authority that governs according to reason places citizens in a relationship not so much of subjection to another person as of obedience to the moral order and, therefore, to God himself who is its ultimate source.[817] Whoever refuses to obey an authority that is acting in accordance with the moral order “resists what God has appointed” (Rom 13:2).[818] Analogously, whenever public authority — which has its foundation in human nature and belongs to the order pre-ordained by God [819] — fails to seek the common good, it abandons its proper purpose and so delegitimizes itself.

c. The right to conscientious objection

399. Citizens are not obligated in conscience to follow the prescriptions of civil authorities if their precepts are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or to the teachings of the Gospel.[820] Unjust laws pose dramatic problems of conscience for morally upright people: when they are called to cooperate in morally evil acts they must refuse.[821] Besides being a moral duty, such a refusal is also a basic human right which, precisely as such, civil law itself is obliged to recognize and protect. “Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane”.[822]

It is a grave duty of conscience not to cooperate, not even formally, in practices which, although permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to the Law of God. Such cooperation in fact can never be justified, not by invoking respect for the freedom of others nor by appealing to the fact that it is foreseen and required by civil law. No one can escape the moral responsibility for actions taken, and all will be judged by God himself based on this responsibility (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).

The whole HHS mandate thing just gets more and more depressing.  They have successfully framed the debate to go into every rabbit hole but the one concerning the free exercise of religion which the Constitution recognizes (not creates) as a right.  The Goebbelization of telling a lie long enough and often enough has formed the vapid substance of the opposition.  Avoiding talking about freedom of religion and talking about contraception ad nauseam.

• When they talk about the cost of contraception.

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

• Some Catholic institutions take federal money so should have to pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs.

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

• That forced contraceptive coverage will not cost anybody more. Even if you accept that nonsense:

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

• That the birth control pill is sometimes used for other things besides contraception.

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

• That the Catholic laity are unfortunately lax in regards to the truth of Church teaching.

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

• No matter what pragmatic or utilitarian argument you make relating to this.

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

The thing is either we have freedom of religion or we don’t.  If I am forced to do something against my conscience with the bully weight of government threatening me with fines or imprisonment they have violated the first amendment to the Constitution and ultimately the natural law rights that we have.

There is no right that a person has that insurance must be paid for by their employer.  This arose historically as a way for companies to attract people.  Companies should be totally free to choose what kind of coverage they have or no coverage at all and really it would be better for employers to get out of providing insurance instead raising salaries and letting individual buy their own coverage.  The medical insurance field would be much more competitive if this were to happen.

You just can’t compromise between an actual right and something that is not a right at all.  There is no suitable compromise when you start trading of your rights for some pottage of government programs.

I find it quite despicable this obvious assault on our freedom and those who try to deny that this is a violation.  I know there are men of good will, they just don’t seem to run for office and instead we have partisans on both sides who will shred the Constitution as long as they get something they want out of if.

“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”

Right now the conservatives are working very hard to prevent this mistake from being corrected by nominating a guy that shilled for the mandate at a federal level and forced Catholic hospitals to use Plan B. Four more years of President Obama and exactly what rights and freedoms will we have left?

This issue should be an all hands on deck reaction and not just an issue for faithful Catholics.

Considering all the attention on contraception and cost of birth control pills I started to wonder whatever happened to so-called “safe-sex”?  For years liberals have been lecturing us on condoms and their many wonders in making things safe.  They have charged popes with murder for not allowing them and even have legislated porn stars to wear them.

I guess they don’t believe their own propaganda regarding condoms.  After all they are much cheaper than birth control pills and no side effects other than sin.  There are certainly some using both condoms and the birth control pill as a backup, but even this shows they don’t trust condoms.  Here they are worried about a “unintended” pregnancy which can occur during a narrow windows yet an STD could be contacted at any time during the month.

Maybe some of the demonstrators from the Occupy Wall Street movement who threw condoms on Catholic schoolgirls could throw some Ms. Fluke’s way. Somehow I don’t think those who are crying about birth control pill costs would much like the suggestion to buy condoms instead.  I guess condoms are good enough to preach to school age kids, but not good enough for them.

In the Office of Readings from the Liturgy of the Hours the readings for Lent are from the book of Exodus with the obvious parallels of the Passover leading up to the celebration of Easter.  It seems every time I read through this section of the scriptures I am always amazed at the actions of the future Israelites.  Here were all these amazing miracles and yet they responded by whining and complaining at every turn.   They were taken so far and yet they had little hope or trust in God that he would continue to guide them.  Come on they went from the miracle of Passover, through the parting of the Red Sea, to erecting a Golden Calf. To paraphrase Bugs Bunny “What a bunch of maroons!”

I get to thinking how they could receive so much and acted so badly in return?  Though then I started to think about my own attitudes.  As a Catholic I get to receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ every time I go to Mass.  Yet really how thankful am I for this.  The miracle of the Eucharist transcends all the miracles of the Old Testament where we saw all the prefigurements. The Incarnation is such a wonder and a mystery we can never fully plumb, yet I will spend more effort thinking how disturbing a drum kit is at Mass.  All the graces we are given and yet how often is their any kind of acknowledgment of this.  Jesus cured ten lepers yet only one returned to give thanks.  It is quite annoying to realize that I am walking off with the nine lepers that were cured.  Sure sometimes I am truly thankful, but most days I go on wondering what God was going to do for me next.  No matter how much God has worked in my life and cured me of some very serious sins, like the Israelites I forget the past and want the next thing now with hardly the trust I should have.

“Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” (Luke 7:47)

Well I have been forgiven much that is for sure, loving much – well not so much.

So I look in the mirror and resort back to Bugs Bunny “What a maroon!”

Humorlectics is a portmanteau I have coined roughly combining humor and homiletics. Humorlectics is a field I think gets short shrift in seminary. Though I also get the feeling that homiletics is an area that gets short shrift in the seminary.

I bring this up concerning the use of humor during a homily. Being a Jester and all I of course believe that humor can be used to make serious points and can certainly be prudently used in a homily. From my limited experience as a convert I have seen humor used both well and not so well.

So here are some of my general reflections on the subject:

• Starting with a joke: All homilies do not need to start off with a joke.  Some priests seem to do exactly this as kind of a crowd-breaker.  This view sees the laity as an audience that must be softened up first before you get to the meat.  This approach really goes downhill when the joke makes notpoint that is part of the theme of the homily.  Starting off a homily with a joke can be very effective when the punchline feeds the theme and emphasizes the points made later on. Trying to do this every time might work for some, but I haven’t seen it all that effective.
• The stand-up-priest or priest as entertainer: There are some that think the whole homily is a vehicle for a stand-up act.  I remember one priest in particular that had a great stand-up act that was hilarious and delivered with perfect comedic timing.  Walking out I had no idea what the spiritual points were, but I remembered how funny he was.  There is certainly a skill-set in speaking that helps to deliver a homily and emphasize the themes.  Protestants are sometimes very effective at this skill-set while Catholic priests seldom are. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen was an perfect example of this ability.   Priests though should play to their own abilities and not try to shoe-horn on some style that is alien to them.  If you have some good humor skills and timing this might be usefully used.
• When it comes to humor, know your abilities and limitations: It is very awkward when you hear a priest deliver a joke rather badly or delivered in such a deadpan way with little or no comedic timing.  Homilies don’t require any level of humor.  My late-pastor and his assistant never used humor in their homilies.  This was simply not their style and they were comfortable in the homilies they delivered and I thought those homilies to be quite effective.  I never walked away thinking “Now if only that homily started out with a joke.”  I’ve also heard some homilies from priests who certainly had a sense of humor and used it well as a natural extension of themselves.  Priests like Fr. Groeschel can use a nice dry-wit tinged with irony to make their points.  Again, each person has their abilities and they should take advantage of them in communication their homily. Cardinal Dolan also knows how to use humor well without trampling over the actual message.

Now if only we had a “Humorlectics and Pastoral Review” magazine to help in this area.

I often like Deacon Greg Kandra blog The Deacon’s Bench with his general link coverage of a lot of what is going on. Though sometimes he can really annoy me. Sometimes I want the blog of The Deacon’s Bench to be benched, though really I just want a little more accuracy.

Case in point today with the headline “New call for divorced and remarried Catholics to be able to receive communion” and his post starting with:

It’s something the pope himself has said needs a closer look.

Immediately my theological spidey-sense when a-tingling. Sorry, but that is just totally mistaken as being connected with that headline. The idea that the Church will ever change the basic premise that those in objectively grave sin can received Communion is just plain ignorant. Before I did any research to check what the Pope has actually said on the subject I forecasted that the Pope was speaking in regards to pastoral considerations in how we deal with this situation, and not about receiving Holy Communion in this state.

Thankfully Canonist Ed Peters did the heavy lifting already on what the Pope has actually said or written and it was as I suspected.

If you are going to make claims such like what Deacon Greg Kandra wrote, he should have made some attempt to back it up. His later update was to an article in the Vatican Insider that had the same sloppiness with no recourse to what the Pope has actually written. As Ed Peters sums up:

But in the meantime, those who claim Benedict XVI as a proponent of formally admitting Catholics in irregular marriages to holy Communion need, I suggest, to parse more carefully what the pope actually said about this matter on various occasions, and to identify more carefully what he actually holds regarding this important question.

The Pope indeed has written on the subject and he wrote in his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacrementum Caritatis under “The Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage”:

29. If the Eucharist expresses the irrevocable nature of God’s love in Christ for his Church, we can then understand why it implies, with regard to the sacrament of Matrimony, that indissolubility to which all true love necessarily aspires. (91) There was good reason for the pastoral attention that the Synod gave to the painful situations experienced by some of the faithful who, having celebrated the sacrament of Matrimony, then divorced and remarried. This represents a complex and troubling pastoral problem, a real scourge for contemporary society, and one which increasingly affects the Catholic community as well. The Church’s pastors, out of love for the truth, are obliged to discern different situations carefully, in order to be able to offer appropriate spiritual guidance to the faithful involved.(92) The Synod of Bishops confirmed the Church’s practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf. Mk 10:2- 12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments, since their state and their condition of life objectively contradict the loving union of Christ and the Church signified and made present in the Eucharist. Yet the divorced and remarried continue to belong to the Church, which accompanies them with special concern and encourages them to live as fully as possible the Christian life through regular participation at Mass, albeit without receiving communion, listening to the word of God, eucharistic adoration, prayer, participation in the life of the community, honest dialogue with a priest or spiritual director, dedication to the life of charity, works of penance, and commitment to the education of their children.

Sure I realize that blog posts are not intended for theological depths, but they shouldn’t lead you to believe something totally in error. Judging by the 84 comments so far I believe I am not the only one annoyed.

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs, referencing the seven point scale of belief that he sets out in his bookThe God Delusion.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist,” to which Prof Dawkins retorted, “Well not by me!” to much laughter among the audience.

The two men were taking part in a public “dialogue” at Oxford University at the end of a week which has seen bitter debate about the role of religion in public life in Britain.

I don’t think this story is as much of a big deal as it is being made out to be. Very few atheists would take the position of a 100 percent certainty that there is no God. Though I think it is an error to describe anybody who has high certainty that there is no God as an agnostic. For them they have weighed the evidence and not found that nothing is known or can be known of the existence of the God, but that enough is known to positively accept that there is no God. An agnostic sits on the fence and sees the balance of what can be known as inconclusive for either side.

No word yet if he will rename his book the “The God Delusion” to the “The 6.9 out of 7 there is no God Delusion.” Though I find it quite interesting that he considers this a significant scale. Especially since so many of the numbers involving chance evolution are quite large involving double exponents. For example a 0.98571428571429 chance there is a God by his scale is whopping compared to a purely natural chance of life evolving as it has.  The 0.98571428571429 chance is quite reasonable compared to the old millions of monkeys typing out the works of Shakespeare eventually.

Prof Dawkins told him: “What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?”

On the subject of evolution my thought is that “However God brought about the human race is fine with me. I just know he was involved.”

A biologist like Dawkins focuses on life evolving out of nothing, but conveniently leaves out that the universe could not evolve out of nothing. The need for “reality” involving space and time requiring an “unconditioned reality” outside of space and time is covered quite excellently in Fr. Robert Spitzer’s New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy.  Fr. Spitzer also recently did a very nice job on two hours of Catholic Answers Live and I quite enjoyed his responding to an atheist who called in on the impossibility of omnipotence.

Another area why I think this is overblown is that while the majority of believers also have a high certainty of God, they do not have absolute certainty.  Blessed John Henry Newman in his book “An Essay In Aid Of A Grammar Of Assent” really delves into the subject of certainty and knowledge.  There is essentially no one who does not have doubt on the subject.

…both the believer and the unbeliever share, each in his own way, doubt and belief, if they do not hide from themselves and from the truth of their being. Neither can quite escape either doubt or belief; for the one, faith is present against doubt; for the other, through doubt and in the form of doubt. It is the basic pattern of man’s destiny only to be allowed to find the finality of his existence in this unceasing rivalry between doubt and belief, temptation and certainty. Perhaps in precisely this way doubt, which saves both sides from being shut up in their own worlds, could become the avenue of communication. It prevents both sides from enjoying complete self-satisfaction; it opens up the believer to the doubter and the doubter to the believer; for one, it is this share in the fate of the unbeliever; for the other, the form in which belief remains nevertheless a challenge to him. – then-Cardinal Josef Ratzinger “Introduction to Christianity“

* Photo Credit

His Eminence Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, President, and His Excellency Most Reverend William E. Lori, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, released a statement on the HHS mandate, dated February 21, 2012, to the bishops of the United States.

You can read the text of the letter over at Insight Scoop.

The letter really says what needs to be said, makes all the right distinctions, and rightly invokes the supreme gravity of the situation concerning the free exercise of religion.

Much remains to be done. We cannot rest when faced with so grave a threat to the religious liberty for which our parents and grandparents fought. In this moment in history we must work diligently to preserve religious liberty and to remove all threats to the practice of our faith in the public square. This is our heritage as Americans. President Obama should rescind the mandate, or at the very least, provide full and effective measures to protect religious liberty and conscience

As I understand it the mandate itself is part of Obamacare and not something the President can rescind. The narrow interpretation of how the mandate was applied is directly in his purview. Though ultimately it is Obamacare itself that must be repealed, especially the mandate. Even if the President backs down and the HHS interprets the exemption in a more traditional way it still would not protect private employers who object but are not under the category of a religious institution. The mandate was tyrannical even before the HHS ruling.

Inn some good news involving conscience protection.

Today, religious liberty gained a resounding victory. A federal court in Tacoma, Washington, struck down a Washington law that requires pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill even when doing so would violate their religious beliefs. The court held that the law violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

“Today’s decision sends a very clear message: No individual can be forced out of her profession solely because of her religious beliefs,” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy National Litigation Director at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund, together with the Seattle-based law firm of Ellis, Li & McKinstry, represents the plaintiffs in the case. “If the state allows pharmacies to refer patients elsewhere for economic, business, and convenience reasons, it has to allow them to refer for reasons of conscience,” added Mr. Goodrich.