Punditry

I recently reviewed Dr. Rice’s excellent book “What Happened to Notre Dame” and now he has written a new letter to Fr. Jenkins. He starts off thanking Fr. Jenkins for his recent support of the pro-life cause in his recent letter. He then goes on with some advice and some critique and then gets to the main body of letter in regards to the pro-life protesters arrested at Notre Dame. He makes some strong points about some confusion in regards to this and to whether Notre Dame can drop the charges.

The full letter is at insight Scoop and I think it is charitable and not polemic in the criticism.

What gets me about the arrest of the pro-lifers is a couple of things. One Fr. Jenkins decided he could give his own interpretation on what the Bishops said regarding honoring pro-abortion politicians. He has not followed the provisions in Church documents such as Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Yet when it comes to a Notre Dame law in regards to protests – that is hard and fast dogma with no mercy or change possible. Dialog is so much talked about, but making allowances for pro-lifers to peacefully protest is another story. The way that these protesters were treated is sad beyond belief. Handcuffing a elderly priest for the crime of protesting what 80 some bishops said should never have allowed is a sad indictment. Really what should have happened is that the protests should have been given permission in the first place.

Dr. Rice is exactly right in that Fr. Jenkins going to the March for Life while prosecuting pro-lifers for peaceful protests will earn him the scorn of many at the march. Notre Dame is justly proud for the part it played in the Civil Rights movement where there was civil disobedience at times. So why not drop the trespassing charges to promote some healing in regards to the pro-life movement and the administration at Notre Dame. Then Fr. Jenkins can help lead Notre Dame in taking a more active role in the pro-life movement.

Opposition to the President’s Heath Care plan means:

1. You’re a racist
2. You’re a racist
3. You’re a racist
4. All of the above

Criticism of the President means:

1. You’re a racist
2. You’re a racist
3. You’re a racist
4. All of the above

Having a difference of opinion with any person of color who is liberal means.

1. You’re a racist
2. You’re a racist
3. You’re a racist
4. All of the above

With ACORN finally roasting on an open fire it is time we remember something else. Earlier today I had tweeted that one of the worse things about the ACORN scandal was the fact that up to last year the USCCB had been pouring some major money into ACORN and this finally stopped after so many cases of voter fraud were hitting the media. The Catholic Campaign for Human Development has been criticized for years because of the organizations receiving money from them. Groups like ACORN are not the exception, plenty of other problematic groups that hide under the banner of social justice receive funds. The critics of CCHD were pretty much ignored, hopefully instead of saying “I told you so” we can be a bit more constructive.

American Papist posts his own thoughts on this and concludes:

What can we do?
Every year around Thanksgiving time there is a second collection taken for CCHD at Masses in the United States. Here’s what I’d like to do:

In the next weeks I will search for the dioceses that have chosen to opt out of this second collection for CCHD (you can help me by emailing me if you know this has happened).

I’d will publish these dioceses here on AmP, and keep the list updated.

Then, I’d encourage you to (respectfully) write your bishop (if his diocese is not on the list) and ask that he also instruct his parishes to opt out of this second collection.

Put that extra money you would have given to CCHD in the collection basket of your own parish, where it will do some actual good.

Michael Sean Winters the Catholic writer who never even heard of Patrick Madrid continues to embarrass himself and the Jesuit magazine he writes for.

Using quite faulty logic he decides that the protests against the Obama Administration are racist “It is becoming well nigh impossible to deny the racist overtones of these protests.” The crowd which was of historic proportions is his main evidence since President Carter and Clinton did not draw similar crowds. It is rather bad reasoning to say that the only difference is that we now have a black president and nothing more.

I don’t recall Presidents Carter and Clinton adding trillions of dollars in debt and at the same time proposing even more programs that would also increase the debt even more. No massive bailouts of corporations came under these presidents. No proposals for cap and trade that would greatly attack are ability to compete in the world were on the table before.

The health care debate is also part of the protests. When Hillary tried to give us HillaryCare there was also a large public outcry against it which killed it before it became a bill to be voted on. This is why even though we had the Democrats holding the presidency and both houses, socialized medicine was stopped. If somehow HillaryCare had made it to the Senate surely there would have been even more of an outcry.

There is also a major change in communications since the previous Democratic presidents. When the “porkulus” bill was being created I saw a massive influx of conservatives on Twitter who opposed the bill and I also saw the beginnings of the organizations of the Tea Parties at the grass roots level. Social communication is being used to get the word out and to get people organized on a level that was hardly possible in previous years. Between Facebook Twitter, and other social networking sites there is the opportunity to organize on a level we have not seen before.

I find the use of the race card quite disgusting and even worse when coming from a Catholic. Shouldn’t we assign the best motives for others? St Thomas Aquinas wrote “yet it is better to err frequently through thinking well of a wicked man, than to err less frequently through having an evil opinion of a good man.” This problem is not unique to either parts of the political divide. We can disagree with others on a prudential level without having to assign them some motive. Everybody is seeking some good even if that good is not apprehended correctly.

I am also rather confused about how the discussion of the Seventeenth Amendment proves this charge or racism? What? He says this is only mentioned in regards to the John Birch society. Funny how I have never been to one of their meetings but have certainly heard a critical commentary amendment regarding states rights. Though he makes a connection between defense of states rights and the Civil Rights act. So I guess any discussion of states rights now makes it racist.

I found it rather ironic his use of “memory of states’ rights being enforced through dogs and water cannons.” Yes this was done by the infamous “Bull Connor” who was of course a Democrat just like every Democratic Governor who opposed racial segregation. The Civil Rights Act itself was passed with the help of the Republicans who as a larger percentage supported it over the Democrats. There were quite a few Democrats like Al Gore’s father who voted against it. Please Mr. Winters if you are going to tar the reputation of Republicans at least get your history right.

Mr. Winters also uses the bad logic that if you want a system closer to what the founders intended then you also want the racism from those earlier times. Therefore any suggestion that you want to go back to the time before the massive nanny state then you also are pinning for the evil of racism for that time. I have heard this type of faulty logic asserted before with the exact same connection. So I guess if liberal talk about the sixties in a positive light then by their logic they long for the days of dogs and water canons used on black persons.

The Democrats have become like the “Church Lady” on Saturday Night Live “Could it be … Racism?” The joke goes that the charge of racism is used anytime a liberal is loosing an argument, unfortunately this is way too accurate. The race card has become like the boy who cried wolf which undermines when there is actually the evil of racism. You can impugn the judicial capability and intelligence of Justice Thomas all day long – just don’t dare oppose a Democrat who just happens to be black.

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Scandal is something that it seems to me many do not fully understand and that it can easily be caused as well of by act as by omission. I am thinking about this especially in regards to Catholic politicians who support the murder of innocents along with other intrinsic evils. As sad as this scandal is the greater one in my opinion is the fact that little or nothing is done about this scandal by so many Bishops.

For example the recent funeral of Ted Kennedy has caused a lot of noise. On various talk shows I have heard an outcry about this from both Catholics and non-Catholics. Part of the problem is a communication problem. Cardinal O’Malley was well within his rights in Canon law to determine that an ecclesial funeral was appropriate for this well know defender of abortion. It is obvious he also tried to minimize scandal by not having the funeral in the Cathedral and there were really a very small number of clergy participating in the funeral Mass itself. The funeral itself though was quite problematic with talking points intercession and the almost total failure of asking for intercession in the repose of Senator Kennedy’s soul.

I think people can prudently criticize what happened at the funeral, but not that there was a funeral Mass in the first place. The eulogizing certainly was not appropriate and in fact not allowed by the GIRM. I think though there is a deeper problem evident. I don’t want to exclusively focus on the late Senator, but also speak generally about Catholics who are public supporters of abortion.

It says a lot that a Catholic politician can promote intrinsic evil very publicly for years and there is no apparent movement by their bishops to do anything about the situation. If a Catholic politicians supports this evil for decades there must come a point when you realize that dialog and whatever you are doing is not working, If for example Sen. Kennedy during his life had been publicly reprimanded and even excommunicated by any of the series of bishops that he lived under the negative reaction of his ecclesial funeral would have been mitigated. People understand the need for mercy and the hope that someone has repented. That we hope in the wide mercy of God for others and especially for ourselves.

You have to wonder why taking steps to bring dissident Catholic politicians back within the fold is so rare? I have written part of it is the fear of being seen as acting politically by the bishops. There is certainly a legitimate concern for bishops as a whole being seen as only a mouthpiece for some political party. But you also have to do the right thing regardless of how it is viewed. Plus the lack of action can also make you appear to be favorable to the part of the dissident Catholic that is being ignored. It also appears political if yo do nothing. The fact that the USCCB was called the Democratic Party in prayer is certainly evidence of this.

There is also a false idea of meekness now. When people such as Patrick Madrid objected to puff pieces on Sen. Kennedy by Catholics which mentioned none of the Senator’s problems there was an outcry by those who saw Mr. Madrid’s very tame comments as over the top. There were lots of cases of this. For example a blog post on the USCCB CNS blog was shut down after myself and others commented on the post praising the Kennedy ethic. The explanation for shutting comments down was really placed on the commenters and not the fact that the post was the problem in the first place. It was the typical blame the pundit when the topic is highly charged.

I am not sure how people can read the Prophets, John the Baptist, and even Jesus’ words and come to the conclusion that you can never say anything negative about a public sinner. Calling someone a white washed sepulcher isn’t exactly politically correct in the modern term. St. Thomas More’s writings were polemic in a way that would never be accepted today. Certainly prudence plays a large part in determining in the current culture how best to use rhetoric to advance the cause and not become a scandal in itself. But the idea of nice today now seems to mean ignoring the obvious and to not call a sin a sin. It is a spiritual work of mercy to rebuke the sinner in a prudent way. Repentance has to be part of our own daily lives and when the log is out of our own eyes then trying to remove the log out of other eyes is an act of mercy.

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

How many examples of Matthew 18:15 do we see when it comes to pro-abortion public Catholics? Certainly there have been examples of the first step even though this should normally be a private action. I remember Fr. Bryce Sybley once telling the story of going and talking to someone I believe to be a state representative who was Catholic and able to convince him to change his mind and his vote. This first step can certainly bear fruit. When it comes to the Federal government I can’t think of any such example of a public abortion supporter to have changed their mind after such a meeting. Nancy Pelosi comes to mind in this regard that even after finally getting around to talking to her bishop on this has gone on to defend abortion in the health care plan.

As for step two of Matthew 18:15 I can’t think of any real examples of this either. State bishops conferences do come out on some bills, just not in regards to specific dissident Catholic public figures. As for step three which is really excommunication I can’t think of an example newer than August: Archbishop Joseph E. Ritter’s threatened excommunication of white parents opposed to integration in 1947. Archbishop Rummel did excommunicate three men in Mar of 1962 in regards to segregation, but thanks be to God they were later reconciled. There was Bishop Bruskewitz excommunication of several groups including members of Catholic for Free Choice in his diocese, but I believe this was a public acknowledgment of Latae Sententiae excommunication that participation in these groups lead to. Archbishop O’Connor in 1990 wrote about pro-abortion politicians that ”must be warned that they are at risk of excommunication’, but a week later also said “I have no intention of excommunicating anybody” and indeed never excommunicated any of the well know pro-abortion politicians in his diocese. But what we do indeed have is a score of dissident public Catholics who appear to have not been disciplined in any way. Gov. Sebelius was told by her bishop to not receive Communion, but she still went on to vote pro death and now as head of the Health and Human Services can do plenty of damage.

In large part nothing has been done to reduce this scandal and some have promoted the culture of death for decades directly leading to the death of others. No good is done for the person who have not yet repented. In fact harm is done by not offering a medicinal remedy to aid them towards repentance. The history of the Church is full of wonderful stories of repentance as a result of excommunication. The scandal caused is secondary to the caring of the soul of the person who promotes intrinsic evils.

Cardinal O’Malley who expressed “disappointment” with the Senator’s record on abortion, had much stronger words for critics of the funeral. Now I certainly agree largely about people making harsh judgement and the problems this causes. If only the Cardinal had managed strong words for the Senator while he was alive and not just to critics of the funeral. Besides the Cardinal fails to mention that there were a whole range of intrinsic evils other than abortion that Sen. Kennedy voted for. Or the fact that the Senator was the leader of dissident Catholics and was involved in shaping Catholic support for abortion. I wish the Cardinal would spend a little time to understand the outrage even when it is put by some in imprudent and harsh language. He could have done a lot in the way of communication before the funeral. It would have been nice if before hand he had written about the numerous evils that the Senator was involved with and then go on to talk about God’s mercy and our hope that the Senator had indeed repented of the evils he supported. This would have been quite helpful to reduce scandal and at the same time advance the teachings of the Church. No doubt some would have still objected to the funeral no matter what, but the Cardinal would also have had an opportunity to teach ahead of time instead of responding to the aftermath.

There is so much in the area of communication that needs to be improved. DIocese need to do a much better job in letting us know what the diocese is doing in this regard. Just having a pro-life office is not enough.

Plus I am not just talking about Catholic politicians. For example how could Frances Kissling the ex-President of Catholics for Free Choice who has done great damage never having to face any medicinal repercussions at all. That she could parade herself before the sympathetic media for years as a Catholic in good standing with an acceptable position? So when bishops and cardinals are surprised when we are scandalize shows a total failure to understand the issues at all. The fact to remember is that many of these are good men totally faithful to the magisterium, but for whatever reasons fail to step in and act as shepherds to protect their flock. I can’t pretend to understand all the reasons for this and will not attempt to psychoanalyze them, I just notice what seems to me to be a lack of action. Though I also can’t detect their prayers for these dissident Catholic public figures either.

It just seems to me that serious scandal has been the result. Faithful Catholics are scandalized when the actions of less-than-faithful Catholics are not addressed. Some Catholics see no reason to conform to the Church if it seems that you really don’t have to conform. Even non-Catholics are scandalize when they see that the Church holds firm when it comes to the dignity of life as far as the teaching goes, just not always the public witness in this regard.

To often when we mention we are scandalize by something, it is the person being scandalized that is addressed. When it came out that the Canadian Bishops conference was involved in sending money to dissident groups in South America and the South American bishops complained, one of the Canadian bishops complained against the people who reported and blogged about it. We must be very careful to be charitable when we write, but charity is not the same as ignoring sin or a situation that causes scandal.

Tom at DIsputations was reading the latest from Sr. Joan Chittister

“Evolution gives us a God big enough to believe in.”

Sorry, Jesus, maybe You’ll do better next time.

But what particularly struck me, in and amongst the flirtation with Spong’s Law of Theophysical Inanity (though Sr. Joan mishandles cosmology and biology rather than quantum physics), was the interior of this sentence:

The unfolding of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the launch, ironically, of the priest Georges Lemaître’s big bang theory — you can imagine how popular that made him in the church — changed everything.

Do we really need to imagine how popular Lemaître’s big bang theory made him in the church? Can’t we Google it?

Per Wikipedia, Lemaître published an expanded version of his theory in 1933, and he became famous throughout the world. In March 1934, “Lemaître received the Francqui Prize, the highest Belgian scientific distinction, from [the Catholic] King Leopold III.” Two years later, he was elected to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences; he became president of the academy in 1960 — a year in which he was also made a Monsignor by Pope John XXIII — and served as president until his death in 1966. Pope Paul VI asked him to serve on the commission investigating oral contraception (he turned it down, citing ill health (and, at least privately, doubt that a mathematician would have much to contribute to the question)).

So his big bang theory made him remarkably popular in the Church, if public honors are any indication.

Yet Sr. Joan implies the opposite. Why?

Don’t you hate it when your stereotypes don’t meet reality? That those men in the hierarchy aren’t some knuckle dragging young earth fundamentalists who hate science. This type of thinking about the Church is fairly common, though usually this type of thinking is outside of the Church and not within a religious order. It looks like she did not spend any time Googling to see what exactly was the reaction, she just knew what it had to be.

What I think is even more contrary to her assumption is the fact that Fr. Lemaître’s contribution is fairly well known to faithful Catholics who mostly delight in his contribution and I have seen reference to him multiple times. No there is nothing “ironic” about Fr. Lemaître’s theory. It was quite fitting with all the Church has done in the area of science and the massive achievements of the clergy in this regard through the centuries. Hey but don’t let facts confuse you.

I thought to watch the Kennedy funeral was too severe a penance to inflict upon myself. Ed Peters though managed it and has some comments about it. At the end he says:

The whole experience left me less hopeful about “dialogue” on life issues (not that I was very hopeful to begin with): we are, it seems clear, talking to people who have no sense of the enormity of the crimes being committed daily against the innocent. None. None.

This matches exactly my own feeling on this. That what abortion means seems to be totally lost on so many in the Church. Even among those that call themselves pro-life they have lost the horror of the murder of the unborn. It seems like the support of abortion has become to them like some unpopular zoning ordinance. Disagreeable, but don’t make too much noise about it. Don’t mention the fact that the deceased supporting sucking the brains out of a child just before being born – talking about this is bad taste, but I guess not voting for this.

Looking at what Ed Peters wrote on the funeral it is just sad that the Church is used in such a way as to promote someone who was a leader in the Culture of Death and who planned and orchestrated how to keep the Supreme Court nice and favorable to abortion. Also very sad that the only person to offer a prayer for the Senator was the President (how does that figure in his Protestantism?).

It also becomes a mockery of the Mass when the intercessions become “Intercessory Talking Points” such as praying for national health care (Oh Lord Deliver us from this). It is also quite evident that the people who talked about the Senator were irony deficient in their praise.

The purpose of a funeral Mass seems to me to pray for the departed, not ask for their intercessions. So instead we have scandal instead of asking for prayers for the late Senator. Just too bad we can’t stick to the GIRM.

From the Catholic Action League

The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts today decried the scandal which occurred this morning at Boston’s most historic Catholic shrine — the Minor Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, known as Mission Church — where a Mass of Christian Burial was used to “celebrate the life” of one of America’s most notorious opponents of Catholic morality, the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy. Senator Kennedy fought for more than three decades to keep the killing of pre-born children legal and unrestricted in the United States.

Surgical abortion has claimed more than fifty-one million human lives since 1973. The Catholic religion defines abortion as an “abominable crime”.

President Barack Obama delivered the eulogy, in which he alluded to Kennedy’s support for gay rights. One of the Prayers of the Faithful was a petition to end divisions “between gays and straights”.

Ecclesial participants included Rev. Raymond Collins, Rector of the Basilica; Rev. Mark Hession, Kennedy’s parish priest from Our Lady of Victories Church in Centerville on Cape Cod; Rev. J. Donald Monan, Chancellor of Boston College; and Sean Cardinal O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston, who thanked President Obama for his words and his presence. Both the homilist, Fr. Hession, and Cardinal O’Malley suggested that the late senator had found eternal salvation.

The Catholic Action League called the event “a tragic example of the Church’s willingness to surrender to the culture, and serve Caesar rather than Christ”.

Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle stated: “Senator Kennedy supported legal abortion, partial-birth abortion, the public funding of Medicaid abortions, embryonic stem cell research, birth control, federal family planning programs, and so-called emergency contraception. He defended Roe v. Wade, endorsed the proposed Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), and opposed both the Human Life Amendment and the Hyde Amendment. Kennedy maintained a 100% rating from both NARAL and Planned Parenthood. In 1993, he received the Kenneth Edelin Award from Planned Parenthood, and in 2000 received the Champions of Choice Award from NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts at the hands of the same Dr. Kenneth Edelin, the infamous abortionist.”

During his 1994 reelection campaign, Kennedy said ‘I wear as a badge of honor my opposition to the anti-choicers’. His successful obstruction of the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 effectively prevented the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Beyond his specific positions on human life issues, Senator Kennedy, along with the late Congressman Robert Drinan, provided the cover and the example for two generations of Catholic politicians to defect from Church teaching on the sanctity of innocent human life.”

“No rational person can reasonably be expected to take seriously Catholic opposition to abortion when a champion of the Culture of Death, who repeatedly betrayed the Faith of his baptism, is lauded and extolled by priests and prelates in a Marian basilica. This morning’s spectacle is evidence of the corruption which pervades the Catholic Church in the United States. The right to life will never be recognized by secular society if it is not first vindicated and consistently upheld within the institutions of the Church itself.”

One of the phrases being used in referring to the late Sen. Kennedy is that “He was a Catholic in good standing.”

This seems to me to be phrase that almost always pops up in referring to somebody who was at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church. If can’t think of reading an article ever where this term was used in connection to someone totally faithful to the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

Now what exactly is a Catholic in good standing? Is there a list on the internet somewhere of good standing Catholics? If so where is the list of Catholics in bad standing? Is there some Catholic equivalent of Santa Clause out there compiling this list and checking it twice?

Now this term is often used in hiring by diocese, but the term itself does not seem to have a technical definition. Though you would think it means something like a person who is a faithful follower of Christ, accepts the authority of the Holy See, follows God’s law, and whose personal life gives evidence of this. Though dissenters that say the are “Catholics in good standing” like the infamous abortion advocate Francis Kissling and the way it is used in many articles I think that it means “A Catholic who is not excommunicated, yet.”

The term is used in such a way as saying that since the Catholic Church has not sanctioned me in any way then they must not have a problem with me as a Catholic. In many cases they are able to say this because their bishop has done little or nothing in regards to the public scandal these publicly dissenting Catholics have caused. Nancy Pelosi, another “Catholic in Good Standing” made outrageous comments on abortion and remains a strong abortocrat. Her bishop did have a talk with her on this that she finally got around to attending. I am all for bishops working to persuade those Catholic politicians by dialoging with them on a personal level. It just seems to be that the dialog never ends and the public figure goes on causing scandal with no repercussions. Why exactly was a figure like Sen. Kennedy able to flouted Church teaching and positively support intrinsic evil over a large period of his life and never experience a medicinal remedy like excommunication? So many Catholic politicians have done exactly the same thing and have been the impetus for the Culture of Death. Though there are also a lot of Catholic priests and theologians that gave these politicians cover by inventing justifications for allowing a Catholic to support abortion. Fr. Drinan and others have a large hand in this. Though Fr. Drinan was also called a “Catholic in good standing” despite his support of abortion.

I am quite glad that more and more bishops seem to be speaking out and I hope this continues to happen. I just hope more realize that the care of souls includes both stopping scandal and providing medicinal remedies as provided by Canon Law. If men could be excommunicated for resisting integration, then why does not the same happen when public figures support intrinsic evils? If this leads to repentance than they can actually say there are “Catholics in good standing” without the tone of “Haven’t got caught yet.”