Punditry

Jimmy Akin on President Obama’s proclamation that June 2010 is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.

So there you have it. President Obama taking credit for all he has done to normalize the open practice of sexual deviancy in our society, as well as measures he’d like to take in the future to further normalize it, including “creat[ing] safer schools so all our children may learn in a supportive environment.”

I wonder if he’d like to require private schools to be “safer” in this way?

And I wonder where all this is going and how long it will be until gets there.

Tolerance and “safe environments” will continue to become the blunt records used against anybody who does not believe that sexual deviancy is a right that must be normalized. Not accepting this behavior will get you labeled in oh so many ways and no doubt with words that end in ‘phobe.’  How long before the travesties that have occurred in Canada and England come our way is a good question.  The real tragedy is that those who are afflicted with same-sex attraction or other disordered desires are confirmed in their sin instead of being helped.

So what month is Adultery Pride month?

Nicolaus Copernicus, the 16th-century astronomer whose findings were condemned by the Roman Catholic Church as heretical, was reburied by Polish priests as a hero on Saturday, nearly 500 years after he was laid to rest in an unmarked grave. [Ref]

I saw the headline for this story on the weekend and growled in its general direction. Seeing what AP story actually said annoys me any more. Usually it is the Galileo story that gets misrepresented as “Eviiilll ignorant Catholic Church against science.” You have to wonder what a reporter workflow is?

1. Hear story about Copernicus being moved into a new tomb.
2. Make Church vs. Science connection in thought process
3. Decide it must be because Copernicus got into trouble.
4. His work being called heretical by the Church must have happened.
5. His previous tomb must not have been worthy and no doubt denied a Catholic burial.
6. Write story using this narrative.

Factchecking is obviously not part of most reporters work flow or so it also seems for editors.  After all it is so plausible from the secular point of view.

• He published De Revolutionbus at the end of his life because of the worry about what other scholars would say.
• No evidence he worried about Church reaction and De Revolutionibus was published under the auspices of a Catholic bishop and dedicated to Pope Paul III.
• At the time he died the no Church official had anything negative to say about his work, in fact it met praise. Cardinal Schonberg urged him to publish his discovery.
• He was buried in Frombork cathedral and there was a plaque saying he was buried there – but not the exact location he was buried.
• He was reburied in the exact same spot he was originally buried 500 years ago.

So I guess the accurate part of the story is that they spelled his name right.

Catholic Culture has an excellent article on this , which I liberally stole from, where they also mention:

There is a grain of truth to the notion that Church authorities were suspicious of Copernicus during his lifetime. At one point he was suspected of keeping a mistress; later he was suspected of Lutheran sympathies. But his scientific work never caused him any conflict with the Church.

Copernicus Catholic background is rather interesting in that his family was rather devout and he got his degree in Canon Law, but went on to practice medicine while serving the poor gratis. There is no documentary evidence that he ever received Holy Orders, but his name was found on a list of candidates for bishop and at one time became administrator of the diocese after the bishop died. His more accurate observations were sent to Paul III and were later used in the Gregorian Calendar reform. The opposition to Copernicus’s work first started among a Protestant pamphleteer.

Last year the new Element 112 was name Copernicium.

Update: I am not of course surprised by ignorant secular reporters and I guess I should not be surprised at the equally ignorant National Catholic Reporter.  Eventually, we get it right: burying Copernicus.  Tom Roberts uses his “Church got it wrong” narrative to advance dissident theology.  Sorry Tom, you got it wrong.

Diogenes puts it succinctly.

So the Knights of Columbus won’t go further than the bishops go. If the bishop hasn’t excommunicated Senator Mengele, the Knights won’t suspend his membership. If the bishops say it’s OK, it’s OK with the Knights.

So if the K of C had been active in England in the 1530s, following the same policies, would they have followed their bishops’ lead in accepting the title of King Henry VIII as legitimate head of the Church in England? Or would they have supported a lonely layman who rejected that claim?

Thomas More, you will recall, was a Knight– although not of Columbus. Today he’s generally known by another title, having gained membership in a still more elite fraternity

A woman who challenged a Catholic ordination ban has died. The Catholic church will not allow her to be buried at a Catholic parish.

Janine Denomme was ordained a priest in April by a group called Roman Catholic Womenpriests. She had been battling cancer and yesterday she died in her Edgewater home.

The Catholic church never recognized Denomme’s ordination. The Archdiocese of Chicago says Denomme automatically separated herself from the Church when she participated in “the simulation of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” The diocese says she knowingly and willingly participated in the simulation and brought excommunication upon herself. And because of that Denomme is denied a Catholic funeral. The Archdiocese says Denomme would only be allowed a Church burial if she gave “some sign of repentance before death.”

Denomme’s funeral mass will be held at First United Methodist Church in Evanston.

She could have avoided this problem if she had chosen to become an influential pro-abortion Senator instead. Then she could have had a televised Catholic funeral. To be fair this case is much more cut and dry compared to a case where a bishop would have some prudential decision made as to the sign of repentance of in regards to a pro-abortion Catholic politician.

This case though does make me rather sad and I pray for her and for that matter her lesbian partner Nancy.

Father Z

The results are in.

Because of the priestly abuse scandals we so often hear that the problem is priestly celibacy. That not having sex causes you to abuse children and teens. That it is unhealthy and unnatural for us not to have sex.

Well if they truly believed this then we need a whole new set of laws.

For example what about socially awkward and extremely shy men? Obviously their unwanted state of celibacy will cause them to abuse children. How about marriages that have grown to be sexless because of one spouse being tired of sex? They too will look for children to abuse by this reasoning. What about people not having sex before marriage and still have not found the person they want to marry?

So what we need are a new form of Temple Prostitutes. Yes government prostitutes and I am not talking about politicians. The government should monitor people’s sex life and determine when a person has been without sex for a specified period to be determined. The celibacy cycle must be monitored to prevent abuse.

Plus who knows when this sets in so maybe the government should force people to get married at a younger age or ensure that government appointed prostitutes make visits for preventive maintenance. By this logic we know that a period of celibacy can cause lifelong problems. We know this because priestly abusers often go on to more and more abuse. So they are no longer celibate yet they have steady sex via their abusive relationships. Those that abuse children often go on to abuse more and more children throughout their lifetime. So the celibacy causes abuse logic would dictate that it is not the psychological sickness of the individual, but the often short period they were actually celibate before abusing children and predominately teenage males. Funny how celibacy causes abuse that targets teenage males. I guess the lack of sex makes men all of sudden choose victims of a certain age and gender since it can’t possibly have anything to do with same sex attraction don’t you know. Just one of those odd quirks that come from being celibate for a period of time.

So you parents that believe celibacy causes abuse out there – make sure your male children either get married early and that they have a continuous sex life or that you buy them prostitutes until the government steps in to help. Plus keep ignoring the fact that most child abuse occurs within families and to a lesser extent public schools. Celibacy is the problem, facts be damned.

I was wondering recently what has happened to Fr. Greeley since the accident he experienced. He is back with some advice on how to attract young men to the priesthood. No it’s not allowing priest to marry, but allowing priests to sign up for a time and then reenlist like they do in the military.

He reminds us he has been doing sociological research on the priesthood for 30 years. His previous sociological expertise told us in a column that America was too racist to elect Obama.  I wonder if Fr. Greeley has met with President McCain yet?

We are all aware of course of the scriptural passage “A priest part-time like Melchizedek.” Plus of course the scriptural example of the Apostles putting in a couple of years and then kicking back in another profession. Some people actually think St. Paul was executed when really he just went back to just being a tentmaker. Of course the priesthood is just a job, not an actual vocation from God don’t you know. Plus six years in seminary is just not enough time to discern the call. Diocese would be so happy to pay for six years in the seminary and for a priest after five years to move on to civilian life as Fr. Greeley suggests. Plus don’t we all want a priest not actually committed to the priesthood? It is much more inspiring to have a priest who is in a tour of duty and just might re-up if he feels like it.

Of course why stop there. What Fr. Greeley says about the priesthood applies equally to marriage. There are people miserable in marriages just like in the priesthood and so instead of those guidelines from that idealistic Jesus about marriage being indissoluble we can sign up for five year hitches instead. Or maybe seven year hitches until the seven year itch sets in. After all the priesthood and marriage are just sacraments and they can be as temporary or permanent as you want them to be. Why sacrifice for Christ – just do things until you get bored and are no longer happy.

Fr. Greeley asks “Who are we, in other words, to question where the Spirit leads a person?” Because everything we do can be attributed to following the Holy Spirit. Be a priest for a while – that’s the Holy Spirit calling you. Leave the priesthood to go do something else – why once again that’s the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit must seem rather fickle to liberals. Feel like being a preist again later on – well that’s also the Spirit calling.

Neither the church nor its people nor the priesthood itself is well served by a miserably unhappy priest. What are some of the reasons a man might want to leave? His parishioners get on his nerves; he can’t stand teens; his fellow priests make him chronically depressed; he wants to begin a family of his own; the work is oppressive; he’s bored and he shudders at the thought that he will be doing the same things for the next half century; he has served under three bishops, all of whom have been fools, and he can’t take the folly anymore; he’s exhausted, worn out, bone tired. Permission to return to the lay life as one who has finished his commitment to active service enables both him and the church to cut their losses.

Pick up the cross daily when you want to.  Parishioners getting on your nerves of couse is not something you could use towards your sanctification.  The heck with the offering it up stuff – that’s for people actually committed to Christ and his Church.  Again what about a miserable unhappy spouse – just wait till the marriage tour is over and don’t re-up.

What Fr. Greeley is trying to do is make the exception to the rule be the rule.  Priests already can be laicized for serious reason.  Sure there is a stigma attached to this, but it is not exactly like anyone goes into the priesthood blindly and without sufficient time to reflect on their vocation. Besides why is the answer for a miserably unhappy priest be that he leaves the priesthood as if this is the only option.  Father Groechel  who has worked with a lot of priests who left the priesthood would certainly not agree that this be the best solution.  He has also worked with returning priests who found their problems did not go away upon leaving the priesthood.  Certainly there are other underlying causes that might be looked at.

The final argument is that if the church is faithful to its commitment to permanent celibacy, God will provide priests for us. Thus we do not and even should not consider modifications. This is one of the favorite cop-outs of bishops and conservative laity: Blame God.

Can’t say I have ever heard clergy or conservative laity blame God for the lack of the number of priests.  God still calls men to the priesthood, but that does not mean they all answer the call.  It is also not God’s fault that we are having much smaller families.  The contraceptive worldview and lack of openness to life is not exactly God’s idea.  There are plenty of reasons in the current culture that makes it difficult to young men to answer the call.  Though this lack is area specific since parts of the world have plenty of men answering a vocation to the priesthood.  The growth of the Catholic Church in Africa is not caused by Africans allowing men to sign up for a tour of duty as a priest.

Fr. Greeley thinks that there must be modifications made of this type to bring in young men.  No explanation for why during the history of the Church that we have not had a problem with men answering the call for the most part.  What has changed is the culture and the modifications that must be made is not the term of the priesthood, but how we work against a culture that works to silence the call.  Caving into the culture never inspires anybody.

I believe Fr. Greeley is making a good faith attempt at a solution to the priestly shortage problem.  I just think his solution is worse than the problem.

Fr. Greeley does at least make a good point in regards to celibacy.

…I think that celibacy is a positive good, and my research shows that it is. It does not interfere with happiness for most priests and may contribute to it.

…Those who bother to discuss my proposal tend to be bitterly against it. For many liberal Catholics (lay and clerical), it is a matter of absolute faith that celibacy is the critical weakness in the church. They think it is the cause, for example, of sexual abuse in the priesthood, though the problem is virtually the same among married Protestant clergy. Nonetheless, they say, celibacy has to go.

Creative Minority Report

Does anybody know who the admin is for this Facebook fan Page?

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI

The fan photos are out of control.