Punditry

From an article by Phil Lawyer on How the Boston archdiocese helped bring contraception to Massachusetts

… In 1965, as the state legislature discussed the repeal of the contraceptive ban, Cardinal Cushing said that he personally opposed the use of contraceptives. But he added, significantly: “I am also convinced that I should not impose my position—moral beliefs or religious beliefs—on those of other faiths.” To legislators weighing the merits of the bill, he said: “If your constituents want this legislation, vote for it.”

Thus did the leader of Boston’s Church signal an end to any active Catholic opposition to legalized sale of contraceptives. But the Boston College Magazine article reveals that the archdiocese had begun quietly planning for a change in the law even before Dukakis introduced his formal bid for repeal.

In 1963, the article reports, Cardinal Cushing was a guest on a radio call-in show. One caller asked the cardinal about his stance on the contraceptive ban, and he replied: “I have no right to impose my thinking, which is rooted in religious thought, on those who do not think as I do.”

At the time of that broadcast, listeners in the Boston area did not know the identity of the woman who called in with the question that drew that response. But now, thanks to Boston College Magazine, we know that it was Hazel Sagoff, the executive director of Planned Parenthood. There is reason to believe that both Sagoff’s call and the cardinal’s response had been arranged in advance. Prior to the show, Sagoff had been conferring with Msgr. Francis Lally, the editor of the archdiocesan newspaper, The Pilot, and a trusted adviser to Cardinal Cushing. Sagoff had said that a bid to repeal the contraceptive ban was doomed to fail, unless legislators were confident that the cardinal would not fight the measure. Msgr. Lally had indicated that he favored an end to the ban—although he hoped that the courts would settle the issue, making legislative action unnecessary.

Thus in the early 1960s, Planned Parenthood was coordinating plans with the Boston archdiocese to ease the way toward legal acceptance of contraception. When Dukakis introduced the repeal bid in 1965, the Catholic journalists at the Pilot received a memo instructing them not to comment on the legislation, “lest we stir up trouble with the Planned Parenthood people who have also pledged their ‘cooperation by silence.’”

“I have no right to impose my thinking, which is rooted in religious thought, on those who do not think as I do.”

Now I am just a armchair pundit and also just another Catholic convert who most of my life ignored theology and philosophy totally. But a statement like that sends me screaming in its vapidness. Now I can easily imagine this on the lips of many people, but on a Cardinal’s? What the heck happened to the Natural Law, did it get thrown under the bus here? Contraception is not rooted in religious thought, but the Natural Law. While certainly we do have revelation that supports contraception as in intrinsic evil and many statements from the Church the wrongness of contraception can be found by people of good will. Besides the Church does not impose her thinking, but proposes the truth.

Whether the Cardinal actually orchestrated a campaign to show that he would not fight the legalization of contraception in any way is beyond my ken. But his statement surely aided that happening and I just hope he was just a real lousy theologian.

Though there wasn’t much fight by American bishops in regards to the legalization of contraception, or for that matter abortion and the liberalization of divorce laws. This is one reason I am very proud of the way the Filipino bishops have been acting and fighting against attempts to legalize contraception in the Philippines along with the fight against allowing divorce. The American bishops might not have been able to stop or slow down the cultural destruction that occurred from the acceptance of contraception, abortion, and divorce, but as Blessed Mother Teresa said “We are not called to be successful, but faithful.”

This weekend at the conference for the American Catholic Council you can see these womyn priests attending.

Yet who do they have celebrate the Mass?

Yes a Male priest, Fr. Wurm. The oh so inclusive American Catholic Council excluded women from being the main celebrant.  Reports are that the womyn priests con-celebrated from their seats with the emphasis on con as in con job.  How dare they hold down the prophetic voice crying out for womyn priests and allow a MAN to be front and center.

From my inner snark I am all for them having womyn priests for their Masses.  This way they aren’t profaning the Eucharist since they won’t have the Eucharist, but just a Protestant service.

Now, the Archdiocese of Detroit said it will conduct a review of the priest’s actions.

“There were several, serious liturgical abuses at that service,” said Ned McGrath, spokesman for the Archdiocese. “It’s disheartening that a Detroit priest would preside over a service with so many…serious liturgical abuses. There will be — has to be — a careful and thorough review.”

Wurn told the Free Press afterwards he was aware that Archbishiop Allen Vigneron had explicilty warned all priests and deacons to not participate. But Wurm said he’s not worried being punished.

“I don’t see that happening,” Wurm said. “I’m older than he (Vigneron) is.” [Source]

What?

Update: Larry D at Acts of the Apostasy was thinking along the same lines as myself.

Despite warnings from Catholic leaders, liberal conference draws large crowd

Calling for reform, Catholics from around the world came to Cobo Center in Detroit on Friday for a three-day conference that’s one of the larger gatherings of liberal Catholics in years. Held by the American Catholic Council, an umbrella group of about 30 liberal Catholic groups, the crowd largely consisted of elderly Catholics who are upset at what they say is the church’s turn to the right.

The Archbishop of Detroit Allen Vigneron warned Catholics to stay away from the conference and said that priests and deacons could be defrocked if they attend a Sunday mass at Cobo.

But that didn’t deter local Catholics from attending, and may even have encouraged them to come, say conference participants. Attendees included everyone from former seminarians to anti-war activists to those calling for women and married priests. All were united in saying that lay people need to have more say in church decision making, such as being able to help decide who becomes bishops and where pastors are assigned. [Source]

So a conference heavily publicized and planned for over a year draws 1 to 2000 people? What even with dissident rock stars Joan Chittister and Hans Kung – (well Kung via a half hour video tape since he isn’t attending)? Celebrating the 35th anniversary of the Call To Action conference with dissidents across the land attending and you call 2,000 people attending a large crowd? The American Catholic Council also has a Facebook page with a whopping 111 likes.

But as other commentators have noted, progressives are spiritual mules that don’t reproduce. Thirty five years later they gather much less people and no bishops at all.

Yes the American Catholic Council are celebrating their glory days by returning to Detroit for the 35th anniversary of the Call to Action Conference. Where they will celebrate just how many of their goals they have achieved – or I mean whine about how none of their goals have been achieved and whose fault it is.

Nick Tom and Al Kresta are live blogging the conference which I find hilarious.

We are currently at a gathering of dissident Catholics in Detroit listening and watching. About 1,000 in attendance tonight. By their own stats in the program:
65% are women
94% are Caucasian
97% are over 45 years old
63 % are over 65 years old
75% attend Mass weekly
3% accept all of the Church’s teachings
90% say the ordination of women is “very” or “critically” important [Source]

Wow those stats are surprising – a whopping 3% accept all of the Church’s teaching?

The part about women’s ordination is not surprising, but you have to wonder about the two streams of thought among them. One of their efforts where they have been somewhat successful is to confuse the role of the laity and the priesthood. That the ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful are pretty much the same thing. While at the same time pressing for women’s ordination.

From their Litany of Progressive Whining

Angered by Church leaders who protect pedophiles and persecute prophets, we cry…

Wondering why we are closing parishes rather than opening ordination , we cry…

Because their heroes like Cardinal Mahony and Bishop Weakland would never do such a thing. And of course women bishops would never protect abusers.

I always find it interesting how they always see themselves a prophets and then cry about persecution. Hello. Though I guess they are trying to be Prophets 2.0. Prophets not persecuted, prophets who instead of crying out against sin instead say sins aren’t sins, and can prophecy falsely. The Old Testament Prophets had it all wrong, if only they would have gone along with the culture they wouldn’t have been killed. John the Baptist instead of denouncing Herod’s marriage should have been a voice crying out in the city saying “I’m OK, Your’e OK”. Prophets 2.0 would instead be demonstrating outside a church demanding Herod’s right to Communion.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Catholic Charities branches of three Illinois dioceses have filed a lawsuit against the state of Illinois in order to continue operating according to Catholic principles — by providing foster care and adoption services only to married couples or non-cohabitating singles.

The suit was filed June 7 in response to the state’s new civil-union law — formally called the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act — which was passed last December by the lame duck, Democrat-controlled state Legislature along a party-line vote and took effect June 1. That law threatens to prohibit agencies such as Catholic Charities from performing foster care and adoption services with state funds if they refuse to place children with unmarried couples, including those in civil unions, whether homosexual or not. The new law essentially views couples in civil unions as married couples, with many of the same rights and privileges, and bars discrimination against them. [Source]

That’s good news that the Thomas More Society is getting involved. When this happened in Massachusetts and San Francisco Catholic Charities just laying down instead of challenging such a law with religious discrimination at it’s root.

Though on a side point I have to wonder about adoptions to non-cohabitating singles? Under Catholic teaching there is at the minimum a preference for a child to have both a mother and father and in the current circumstance of long waits for adoptions is adoptions to non-cohabitating singles a valid alternative when a married couple is also awaiting a child to adopt?

I haven’t posted on New York congressman Anthony Weiner scandal via my blog or Twitter etc despite how pun-worthy the congressman’s name is with the details of the scandal involved. Though I have been following the story since it first came out wondering when the congressman would finally move along from “Go away there is nothing to see here” mode to some form of acknowledgment and apology.

To my sorrow it was only today that I thought to pray for him, his family and the people involved. When you get hyper-political it is easy to see people as chess pieces and when a pro-abortion politician falls you think of it in terms of political points. Just like how much the left loves it when a Televangelist is caught in some sexual escapade, we on the right can have the same feelings when some liberal politician falls especially such a rabid critic of conservatives such as Rep. Weiner.

That politicians are just as susceptible to original sin should be a surprise to no one and if anything are placed in an arena of increased temptations. Though Rep. Weiner has confirmed my prejudice against liberals politicians in that they hardly ever resign after a scandal and rarely received great pressure from their political allies to do so. They talk about accepting “full responsibility” while not accepting any consequences for their actions.

Regardless I will try to remember to pray for him and to pray that he also repents of his culture of death views. The connection between supporting abortion and seeing women only as sexual objects to be used is not a casual connection.

How often have you heard or read the statement “I have never heard a homily on …”. I know I have come across this on Catholic blogs on multiple occasions and I am sure that I have mouthed that phrase myself at least once. We notice the lack of some subject being covered in homilies we hear on some subject important to us.

We especially notice this lack for subjects that we consider important for other people to hear. Rarely if ever do we say “I have never heard a homily on” some area where we ourselves need improvement. But that follows since we almost always are more apt to notice faults in others while being dismissive of our own faults.

Though I want to address another aspect of the “I have never heard a homily on …” phenomenon. Why do we think the homily should be the primary vehicle for teaching? Do we really believe that if “subject X” was more often talked about in a homily that people would be more submissive to the Church’s teaching on “subject X”? That if for example subjects such as contraception and abortion were more talked about in a homily that the average parishioner supported these things would change their mind? “I heard the priest talk about the sin of contraception today and so immediately went home and through out the birth control pills.” This is not to say that subjects such as these should not have a wider coverage within homilies, but that the “I have never heard a homily on …” (IHNHAHO) is not the underlying problem. As the GIRM states:

65. The homily is part of the Liturgy and is strongly recommended, for it is necessary for the nurturing of the Christian life. It should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners.

So it seems to me the homily is to open up the scriptures to us as Jesus opened up the scriptures on the road to Emmaus and to be also crafted for the “particular needs of the listeners”. The second area is certainly where Catholic teaching can be shored up in those realms where the priest believes there to be a deficit among the parishioners.

The real question we should be asking is why some doctrine or area of the spiritual life is missing from the catechesis and formation of Catholics. The homily is not meant to be the primary teaching vehicle for remedial formation. A ten minute homily on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation can not be our primary source of formation. A gifted homilist can do great good, but frankly the state of homiletics in my experience range the gamut. Though we are not like Protestant churches that stress preaching and put the name of the pastor on signs outside like a kind of “look who we have preaching” billboard. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld “We go to church with the homilists we have.”

The problems are much deeper and cover faith formation at the levels of family, schools, R.C.I.A, continuing adult formation, etc. Plus we all have a duty to inform our consciences and to seek any formation to help us grow in the spiritual life and to become saints. The breakdown in catechesis and anti-catechesis from dissidents has exasperated problems leading us to say the IHNHAHO statement. I have certainly read and heard a number of RCIA horror stories in regards to the faith taught – thankfully my own RCIA experience was very positive. We certainly have heard about how the faith was watered down and how Jesus hand puppets and felt banners became the substance of Catholic education. There are many things we can complain and commiserate on in regards to Catholic formation.

The question is what can be done about these problems? Introducing these subjects in a homily will not of itself help people to understand the Church’s teaching since often a lot of groundwork needs to be laid first theologically and philosophically. We can’t do anything about bad catechesis in the past, but must finds ways to correct those deficiencies. I’m not an expert on adult faith formation and so they don’t pay me the big bucks or any bucks at all to pontificate on solutions. But I am also a blogger so will pontificate anyway.

Parishes were once the center-point of a Catholic’s life and I think we need to find ways to bring about a greater level of connectiveness at the parish level so that some level of adult faith formation can occur. The growing number of parishes with Eucharistic Adoration certainly achieves part of this. Adult faith formation does not mean just classes, but a living of the Catholic life. Eucharistic Adoration starts at what we need most – to worship God in adoration and to pray. No doubt this also moves us into wanting to know more about the faith. Surely other things could open us up to more sacramental catechesis such as an emphasis on confession at the parish level. Parishes need to be something more than a place we go once a week for an hour to mark off a requirement on the minimum Catholic requirement checklist.

So how do we make that happen? I would certainly like the hear examples of places where parish life became more important and adult faith formation improved.

A rare rant from the gentle-mannored Ironic Catholic who is “flummoxed” by people dismissive of the idea of a culture of death.

Let me put it this way: I live a pretty charmed existence, (lower) middle class in the sedate Upper Midwest, with a lovely family and work I love. But I am also surrounded by people interested in slashing human dignity at every turn: hospitals that ask me with every pregnancy (for over two hours at the mandatory genetic questioning intake) are you sure you don’t want to kill your child, part of a Church where a majority of practitioners support torture, a country that increasingly encourages assisted suicide over being human and holding that person’s hand, a nation at war for reasons I *still* cannot understand, a neighborhood where a mother of a child with Down Syndrome had an acquaintance tell her (IN FRONT OF THE CHILD) “why didn’t you just abort him?”, a town where there are homeless families facing the “slow kill” of living on the street, and more. If this isn’t the culture of death, well, what the ^%(&%)# is? [Source]

Amen. A culture where biotech company Senomyx uses aborted fetal cells in the research and development of artificial flavor enhancers and work for companies like PepsiCo, Nestle, Kraft. They use human embryonic kidney cells taken from an electively aborted baby to produce taste receptors for testing.

I’m not much of one to join boycotts and besides I hate Pepsi, but also no longer consume soft drinks. Though Pepsi does have other products like Sobe Water, Green Teas, Starbucks Ready to drink coffees, etc that I will totally avoid as along as they continue association with Senomyx. Especially as other companies dropped their association when this was originally made news.

The president of Family Radio, Harold Camping, prediction that the Rapture will occur tomorrow May 21, 2011 is getting a lot of commentary and the question is does R.E.M feel fine.

I’ve noticed that a lot of the commentary on the social networks and new sites is predominantly of the secular “look at those crazy Christians” variety. That Camping’s views are pretty much lumped together with all Christians. People have also had much fun with the idea of the Rapture as popularized by the Left Behind series. Though I doubt most realize that the idea of the Rapture is certainly not universal among Protestants and of course totally alien to Catholics and the Orthodox. Of course the Rapture is rather a modern idea invented by John Nelson Darby a Irish Lawyer and the father of dispensationalism later popularized by Scofield.

That Camping’s prophecy is mocked is not surprising and of course much of that criticism comes from Christians. The end of the world chicken littles are nothing new and often should be smiled at and laughed about. That Camping has made a previous prediction makes is more laughable and of course there was the Edgar Whisenant best seller on why the Rapture would occur in 1988, and not surprisingly he sold less copies when he subsequently predicted it in 1989. These types of false prophets are laughed at and of course they have no credibility.

Now if you want to be a false prophet and predict things that never happen and not only keep your credibility and even get a high paying job you need to be a environmental prophet. No matter how badly you off in predicting the future, it doesn’t matter as your latest prophecy will seem just as credible to many people.

For example President Barack Obama Science Advisor John P. Holdren predicted the “great die-off” for the 1980s. Oh well we all make mistakes. In 1986 Holdren predicted “carbon dioxide-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020. Just two years ago when queried on this:

Vitter: So you would stick to that statement?
Holdren: I don’t think it’s likely. I think we should invest effort – considerable effort – to reduce the likelihood further.

Vitter: So you would stick to the statement that it could happen?
Holdren: It could happen, and …

Vitter: One billion by 2020?
Holdren: It could.

Talk about faith.

Modern critics have noted his role in Paul Ehrlich’s famous wager with Julian Simon: Holdren chose five metals that he believed would be more expensive in ten years’ time due to scarcity, while Simon predicted each would be less expensive. A decade hence, Ehrlich’s group was $1,000 poorer (a chance to reduce their carbon footprint, perhaps).

Or how about Rachel Carson who wrote the book Silent Spring which was the death knell for millions who subsequently died of malaria? Lets forget about that bit of science prophecy and concentrate on Harold Camping.

• A 1990’s textbook said “some scientists estimate that the world’s known supplies of oil, tin, copper, and aluminum will be used up within your lifetime.
• Harrison Brown, a respected member of the National Academy of Sciences, published predictions in Scientific American in 1970 which estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper by 2000, and that lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would all be gone by 1990.
• Paul Ehrlich, famously predicted in his best-selling book The Population Bomb: “The battle to feed all humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines; hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”
• Ehrlich, in an article entitled “Eco-Catastrophe” in The Progressive magazine, offered a scenario in which four billion people would starve to death between 1980 and 1989, 65 million of whom would be Americans.
• “Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” in the year 2000 Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia
• “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michael Oppenheimer
• “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” Life magazine, January 1970.

And the list of faulty environmental predictions go on and on and on and yet retain secular credibility.  Certainly there is a double standard among false prophets so if you are going to be one be a environmental false prophet.