Punditry

Fr. McBrien in The Tidings:

Religious communities of women have been responsible for many of the good things that the Catholic Church in the United States has achieved, both before and after the Second Vatican Council.

It is all the more distressing, therefore, that two Vatican agencies — the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) — have targeted these communities and their principal leadership organization for a “visitation” and “doctrinal assessment” respectively.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the “visitation” is the requirement that each of the visitors will be required to make a public profession of faith and an oath of fidelity to the Apostolic See.

This requirement will discourage a number of potential visitors from volunteering their services in this study, and thereby skew the visitation teams in a particular ideological direction.

Matthew at Creative Minority Report responds:

Did you get that? An oath of fidelity to the Apostolic See skews you in a particular ideological direction, ie conservative.

Fr. McBrien, it’s called being faithful. It’s not ideological.

But using logic would lead one to an inescapable conclusion. If being a conservative Catholic is defined as being faithful to the Apostolic See, then how must a liberal Catholic be defined?

Tsk Tsk Fr. McBrien. The first rule of Heresy club is you don’t talk about Heresy club. And you never ever say what you really mean.

Yes having an religious order actually taking an oath to the Apostolic See is too much. What to they think they are authentically Catholic or something? Actually the whole refusal of taking the oath of fidelity seems a hard one to understand. I remember when Bishop Baker when he was installed as Bishop had everybody working for the Diocese take it and there was some anger about this. Seems a good idea to me for a new Bishop to find the tares among the wheat. Every time I started a new enlistment in the Navy I had to take an oath. An oath is a serious thing and their is a good reason for the military to have one. The same goes for religious orders which comes under the control of the Holy See. I appreciate the honesty of those who refuse such an oath, but those that do should not be in a Catholic religious order.

Visitors to a gallery in Scotland have been defacing the Bible in the name of art.

The Gallery of Modern Art in Glasgow has invited art lovers to write their thoughts down in an open Bible on display as part of its Made in God’s Image exhibition.

Next to the Bible lie several pens with a note saying: “If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it”.

Several visitors have already taken up the offer, choosing to leave messages of abuse and obscenity rather than support for the words of God.

“This is all sexist pish, so disregard it all,” one message read.

Another scrawled over the first page of Genesis: “I am Bi, Female & Proud. I want no god who is disappointed in this”.

Others wrote: “The Gospel According to Luke Skywalker”, “F*** the Bible” and “Facist God”.

The exhibition, which also includes a woman ripping pages from a Bible and stuffing them into her underwear, has outraged the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland.

This has got to be the perfect illustration of the progressive mindset. Stuffing scripture pages into your underwear – because you know it is the Church that is obsessed by sex. The other day I heard Fr. Peter Stravinskas talk about his many visits to the Larry King show. He was being interviewed on “Al Kresta in the Afternoon” where he talked about how it is the Church that is obsessed by sex, yet he was always invited on the Larry King show in relation to some sex scandal.

But the gallery’s artist in residence, Anthony Schrag, is unrepentant.

“Any offensive things that have been written are not the point of the work,” Schrag told The Times newspaper.

“It was an open gesture. Are those who say they are upset offended by the things that people write, or just by the very notion that someone should write on a Bible?

People are not offended that people might write in a Bible, we do in all the time taking notes in the margin. It does seem more and more to me that “artists in residence” is one of the most amazing con jobs ever. It is like the Emperor News Clothes, but with people afraid to say “Thats’ junk.” For example I give you this artists “The Beer Tree” – you must read the description and watch the video.

“If we are to open up the Bible for discussion, surely we have to invite people to speak out.”

The Metropolitan Community Church originally proposed the exhibition as a way of reclaiming the Bible as a sacred text.

No surprise that this church is “inclusive Christian ministry to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities.” Inclusive that is if you fit in the category they want. Not very inclusive to those of us who take Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition seriously.

However, some of its members have been shocked by the insults written in the Bible on display.

“The Bible should never be used like that,” church minister Jane Clarke said.

“It was our intention to reclaim it as a sacred text.”

Yes the “write yourself in” really pushes the sacred aspect. They did not advance past what Mark Shea calls “What can it hurt?” Funny how so many “prophetic ministries” can’t seems to get a grasp on predicting predictable results.

A Catholic Church spokesman said: “One wonders whether the organisers would have been quite as willing to have the Koran defaced”. [reference]

In a type of mock ceremony that’s now been performed in at least four states, a robed “priest” used a hairdryer marked “reason” in an apparent bid to blow away the waters of baptism once and for all. Several dozen participants then fed on a “de-sacrament” (crackers with peanut butter) and received certificates assuring they had “freely renounced a previous mistake, and accepted Reason over Superstition.”

For Gray, the lighthearted spirit of last summer’s Atheist Coming Out Party and De-Baptism Bash in suburban Westerville, Ohio, served a higher purpose than merely spoofing a Christian rite.

“It was very therapeutic,” Gray said in an interview. “It was a chance to laugh at the silly things I used to believe as a child. It helped me admit that it was OK to think the way I think and to not have any religious beliefs.”

…Atheist Gary Mueller recently mailed his de-baptism certificate to St. Bonaventure Catholic Church in Concord, Calif., and asked to be dropped from its baptismal record. The church told him, in effect, that he was all wet.

“While we do not remove a name/person from a Baptism register, we can note alongside your name that ‘you have left the Roman Catholic Church,’ ” the Rev. Richard Mangini replied in an e-mail. “I hope that God surprises you one day and lets you know that He is quite well.” [reference]

As a former atheist I would like to debunk what they are saying, but since I can only rely on superstition and not reason I am unable to. When I became Catholic I had to sign one of those documents about promising to abstain from reason and other bad habits I had picked up in a lifetime of atheism. In the last ten years I have been much happier now that religion is a crutch and life is easier now also since I don’t have to think anymore and can just blindly follow some foreign guy in a robe! I embrace my sheepleness.

Besides reason is not what it is cracked up to be. Just what had it done for St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas. Pascal, or even our present Pope? Remember that encyclical Pope John Paul II wrote “Faith and Superstition”? Oh wait.

Now if these people were serious about giving up Christianity and the fruits of Christendom, they should also denounce hospitals, universities, and even modern science, and of course acts of charity. They want to denounce Christianity while at the same time enjoying the fruits of it.

I am so glad that this man showed us how to use reason! Forming judgments by a process of logic always leads you to sticking a piece of paper with REASON on it to a hair dryer. Mocking Christians with phony rituals that have not ability to cancel out an ontological change screams reason. Though ‘Reason itself is a matter of faith,” G. K. Chesterton wrote. ”It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.”

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth–in a word, to know himself–so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves. – Pope John Paul II Fides et Ratio.

The Catholic Key blog titled the post on this “Atheists Need Better liturgists” Actually a stunt as silly as this sounds just like something a liturgist would recommend. Rocks in baptismal fonts and blow-dryers marked reason kind of go together.

I have been slow to getting around to responding to Kathleen Kennedy Townsend Newsweek piece calling Obama more Catholic than the Pope. It is so laughably bad that I first felt responding to it was overkill since it is such a target rich environment for stupidity.

But there they part ways. Politics requires the ability to listen to different points of view, to step into others’ shoes. Obama might call it empathy. While the pope preaches love, listening to the other has been a particular stumbling block for the Catholic hierarchy (as it is for many in power). The hierarchy ignores women’s equality and gays’ cry for justice because to heed them would require that it admit error and acknowledge that the self-satisfied edifice constructed around sex and gender has been grievously wrong. Before he became John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla had a telling all-or-nothing formulation: “If it should be decided that contraception is not an evil in itself then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit is on the side of the Protestant Churches.”

It is rather evident that Kathleen Kennedy Townsend has not read any of the Pope’s books and knows next to nothing about him. One of the Pope’s hallmarks is that he is a deep listener and fully engages people. As a theologian and scripture scholar he spends much time in reading those who he has a lot to disagree with. Yet as in his book “Jesus of Nazareth” he takes what is good from their writings into his own thought. He has the all to rare talent to not read into others, but to actually read others. His significant time as prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith had very little time spent to addressing dissenting theologians and even in those cases the conversations with them went on for years resulting in only a couple disciplinary actions. This is a man who will actually listens to different points of view and will take the truth from wherever it is found. But of course since he is not accepting of evils the culture promotes than he is not listening according to them.

I can’t say I am all to impressed with President Obama’s ability as a listener. He makes noises about respecting your opinion while not changing his in any way. With the majority of American being pro-life, how much listening has he done in that direction? As for him admitting error, when faced with the proof of his vote for infanticide that the text of the bill was identical to the one unanimously passed – he said that the NRLC was lying.

Actually that supplied quote is reported to be from a minority report written by two men which included Karol Wojtyla and defended the Church’s truth on contraception. I can’t find any actual copies of the text for the minority report for the Humanae Vitae commission and the text is only cited by dubious sources as far as I could see. Of course it also does not mean what she thinks it means if accurate. The minority report as reported was guided by then-Cardinal Wojtyla thoughts and was totally in support of this truth of the Church. When it comes to the truth it is often an all or nothing prospect. Either the Church teaches the truth and is guided by the Holy Spirit or she is not. If the Church can teach that a good intended by God is a grave sin then she is not the Church of Christ – thus no reason to be Catholic in the first place.

That attitude has resulted in some heinous decisions. Most famously, in the lead up to the encyclical “Humanae Vitae” in 1968, an advisory body of theologians and laity empaneled by the pope advised that the church should reverse its position on birth control and concede that the issue should be a question for morality and for science. But authority–not truth, not love–prevailed: Pope Paul VI, listening to the advice of Wojtyla, disagreed with the majority of these advisers, who had voted 69 to 10 for change, fretting that to change this position would weaken his authority.

The purpose of the commission was not to determine if teaching on contraception was true. This teaching was already infallible by the ordinary magisterium. The purpose was to determine if the pill was morally different from other methods of contraception. While it appears the majority of the people involved in this thought that it was not, that actual report has never been released – only some appendices leaked to the press. Theology is not a democratic action. When Jesus asked the Apostles who people said he was, all but Peter got the answer wrong. Plus Peter had help from the Holy Spirit in this case. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend calls the support of Church teaching a heinous decision. Hey remember all the promises by supporters of the pill – none that have come true. We have an abortafacient chemical that has resulted in evils upon evils in its destruction of society. The left likes to speak of being prophetic, yet ignore true prophecy contained in Humanae Vitae.

In the same vein, American bishops in the 1970s struggled to produce a paper that would address the concerns of women. After nine years of effort, they gave up. Why? According to Bishop P. Francis Murphy, bishops see themselves as “teachers, not learners: truth can not emerge through consultation.” Pope Benedict, having lived in the safety and security of the Vatican for much of his professional life, is part of this culture that silences dissent. (His last job was as the enforcer of doctrine.)

Pretty funny for a Kennedy talking about somebody living in “safety and security”. As if she has ever lived apart from the echo chamber of Kennedy liberalism. Cardinal Ratzinger was really good on “silencing dissent” that is why we never hear any dissent – oh wait.

In 1979, Sister Theresa Kane, the head of the Sisters of Mercy and the president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, greeted Pope John Paul II on his first visit to the United States by proposing that the Church provide “for the possibility of women as persons being included in all ministries of our Church,” including the priesthood. This was greeted with revulsion at the Vatican, which insists that the only people who can represent God in the priestly role are those with male sex organs.

Yes the same leadership conference currently undergoing a visitation by the Vatican because of their doctrinal and obedience problems. The last line is so stupid and offensive in that it takes in no account why the Church reserves the priesthood for men. I wish supporters of women’s ordination would spend at least half their time trying to understand this truth instead of whining about it. They never address any real theology or the fact that this is simply the will of Christ and the Church can’t change it. But yeah make some snarky remarks about “male sex organs” instead will do.

Yet polls bear out that American Catholics do not want to be told by the Vatican how to think. Despite the rhetoric of love and truth, the Vatican shows disdain (if not disgust) toward gays. But 54 percent of American Catholics find gay relationships to be morally acceptable, according to a 2009 Gallup poll. Meanwhile, against all scientific evidence and protestations from clergy on the ground, the pope claims that condoms aggravate the spread of AIDS. Seventy-nine percent of American Catholics disagree, according to a 2007 poll by Catholics for Choice.

No we want to be told by Kennedy’s how to think. It is rather obvious that she has not read one Church document that addresses those who suffer with same-sex attraction. The document written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger shows not disdain or disgust in any way. But she must set up her strawmen, in fact she seems to be grasping at strawmen. When you have to resort to a group that advocates murder of the innocent, you pretty much give up the right to say that the Church is not listening to the Holy Spirit.

Notre Dame awarded the president an honorary degree because it saw the need to highlight the best of Catholic teaching as applied to politics: the ability to open the eyes of those who would prefer to keep them closed, and to open the hearts of those who would prefer not to know the pain that their actions cause. The pope has a lot to learn about Catholic politics in America. Barack Obama can teach him.

It is the supporters of abortion who need to heed “open the hearts of those who would prefer not to know the pain that their actions cause.” The President can certainly teach the President about many Catholics in America. The President does represent many American Catholics, though this is not to his good. Too many Catholics do not know their faith and they betray it for some pottage of promises. The title of the Newsweek piece is “Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does.” Again the President does represent those Catholics who see themselves as American’s first or that “American Catholic” is some flavor of the Catholic Church. Americanism is not a knew thing as Pope Leo XII well knew.

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology — informally known as the United States’ Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;

• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility” — in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational “Planetary Regime” should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans’ lives — using an armed international police force.

Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.

Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience, co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately transcribed.[reference]

The way the Obama Administration has been going can we apply for exemptions to Godwin’s Law.

It has been a good week for eugenics. Earlier this week we had Justice Ginsburg saying concerning Roe v. Wade :

Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

Surely Margaret Sanger would approve of both Ginsburg and Holdren. The Culture of Death keeps rolling along while the media stares pointedly away.

Looking over the stories on the Pope’s meeting with President Obama they mostly have a common thread of a genial conversation and common ground. Some go as far as mentioning their divide on life issues – but not much more than that. Some even mention the gift of “Dignitas Personae” along with the new encyclical, but not the significance.

Try the following thought experiment. Pope Benedict XVI give then-President Bush a document on just war theory. Imagine the media reaction and gloat. Yet the Pope gives the President a Vatican instruction covering the very area the President is most lacking morally and it is roundly ignored except in Catholic sources.

The same media that quotes a Vatican janitor and trumps it as “Vatican Says!” screaming across the headlines can’t seem to find the headline in this. I mean come on do I have to write it for them “Pope slams Hope!” since they are so fond of that word combo.

Update: Reuters mentions it.

In a surprise move, the pontiff gave Obama a booklet explaining Vatican opposition to practices such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, which Obama supports.

Yes the old “Vatican position” not authentic Catholic teaching consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church for 2000 years. I don’t expect them to say that exactly, but the whole “Vatican position” thing is pure spin. They could at least say “Catholic teaching.” They want to put this as if it is talking points to minimize this.

Also love “In a surprise move” phrase. Pretty funny if you think about it. Not only can’t you expect the “Spanish Inquisition” you also can’t suspect “Pope giving out relevant documents.”

Musings of a Pertinacious Papist posts and article by Pieter Vrie from the New Oxford Review (with permission) that has some interesting insights into the apostolic visitation of U.S. women’s religious orders

That a national leadership conference should be the subject of a doctrinal inquiry by the Holy See is “virtually unprecedented,” says the always informative Vatican insider John L. Allen Jr. (National Catholic Reporter, May 1), because such tasks are commonly left to the competence of national bishops’ conferences. Moreover, that the CDF, the highest doctrinal office in the Church, is spearheading the investigation — as opposed to the CICLSAL, which has jurisdiction over religious orders — suggests that Rome has grave concerns about the theological currents emanating from the LCWR’s assemblies. Here is one instance in which Benedict’s curious selection of William Cardinal Levada as prefect of the CDF will be of benefit: The American cardinal should have no trouble decoding “nuance” in the LCWR material to be scrutinized.

The rampant dissent in religious orders is not exactly a well kept secret. These religious communities were unable to correct since their leadership had succumbed to the same disease for the most part. The U.S. Bishops also failed to act and to do anything meaningful in this regard. It is too bad the Vatican had to step in and that says a lot.

Seems a bit blunt, but the truth is often that way. Though we must not forget the blossoming of religious life that are built of rock and not the shaky ground warned about. Where Christ and his Church is loved we have wonderful examples. Or course what is true for religious life is true for all of us. The guilty conscience of the LCWR will decry this as an inquisition, though I am sure wolves aren’t happy either when the shepherds show up.

Sometimes it seems to me that the National Catholic Distorter works to top themselves each week. I mean you can only keep walking so far off the cliff until gravity takes effect.

I am mesmerized by the Iranian citizens, most of them young, who are marching in the streets of Tehran. They show courage, spirit and a deep desire for justice. I’m especially intrigued by the women, many of whom are letting their head scarves slide back on their heads. A good number, I am sure, believe that the “hijab” is not essential for Muslim women. In that highly religious nation, this crowd clearly wants a government that reflects the best of Islam, the best of what their religion has to offer.

All this makes images of St. Peter’s Square flash through my mind. I recall in the late 1990s, marching through that square with hundreds of Catholic reformers from all over the world. We too wanted justice: justice in our church, such as gender equality in all ministries, optional celibacy for priests, and the right to elect our bishops. None of us wore veils, but if we had, they would have been slipping, you can be sure. We wanted a church that reflects the best of the Catholic tradition.

True, Iran is not the equivalent of the Vatican. Iran is a nation-state, and can put physical force behind its demands. The Vatican, although technically a “nation,” is really a seat of ecclesial power, with no physical security forces (only psychological ones) to enforce its will. But both are theocratic and although both have traditions of democracy in their history (yes, we did elect bishops in the church at one time), and neither seems to embrace the meaning of that tradition.

Yes the Vatican has psychological security forces. That certainly explains the existence of NCReporter, Commonweal, and other dissident publications. Theocracy of course means rule by God – not sure why they have a problem with that. Exactly how would they want the Church governed? Well of course they see themselves as the proper rulers who are inspired by the spirit of the age. For me I will stick with the Pope and his charism of infallibility (properly understood and defined at Vatican I) that did not pass out of existence with Vatican II. I really find this comparison of Iran and the Vatican to be rather offensive. The Progressive Catholics might have had hundreds of so-called reformers at St. Peter’s Square, but of course they discount the thousands and in fact millions of Catholic faithful to the Church. The problems with their reformers is that they forget that reform starts with themselves. Though I guess that is something all of us forget to some extent. If you want to reform the Church – grow in holiness.

Once again we have the comparison of mantillas, which were only worn at Mass, with the burka. The comparison is so ludicrous it is hard to imagine why it is even seriously advanced. To them I guess the mantilla is a veiled threat.

I often find it funny how they love to bring up the fact that Bishops at one time were selected by the faithful. Of course when the Church was so much smaller and was being persecuted the faithful were actually for the most part faithful. Something about adopting a faith that might make you a martyr during times of persecution makes you take it a bit more seriously. You might have noticed when their were hundreds of thousands of signatures against Obama speaking at Notre Dame the Progressive were not taking up the cause of Democracy within the Church. Do they think that a model of Church democracy would have been a good idea when the Arian heresy was so fervent? Do they actually think that Church doctrine should change based on the votes of the people? Hey lets vote out the doctrines of Hell and Purgatory so we can do as we please and go straight to Heaven. Let’s vote out . Sorry, Democracy is not a good model when it comes to eternal truth. The Church is not a human institution or else the Gates of Hell would have been wide open.

In Iran, at the traditional Friday prayers on June 19th, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader who can overrule everyone else, essentially told demonstrators that the recent election was legitimate, and that they should cease and desist. He rejected demands for a new election.

It reminded of that day many years ago in St. Peter’s Square, when our message too fell on deaf ears. Neither Pope John Paul II or Benedict XVI has moved the church toward gender equality, optional celibacy or any semblance of church democracy.

The reason their message fell on deaf ears is that their message is intended for itching ears as in 2nd Timothy 4:3 “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myth” If that isn’t an exact diagnoses of the less than faithful Catholics I don’t know what is. But as St. Paul says we must “Convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching.”

Why is it so difficult, I wonder, for absolute religious leaders to listen to the sensus fidelium (the sense of the faithful), or to change? Maybe it has something to do with the word, “absolute.”

Maybe it has something to do with the word, “absolute.” So why does absolute get scare quotes. What is wrong with the word absolute? A truth of the faith that can change is not a truth. I thank God for the Absolute and to paraphrase G.K. Chesterton that what is true on Monday is still true on Wednesday. Though as is true of all relativists Catholic’s is that they will hold as absolutes — female priests, contraception, homosexual activity, etc.

Also ironic that a declining periodical such as the National Catholic Reporter even mentions the sensus feidelium. The sensus fedulium has spoken subscription-wise. Besides the term means sense of the faithful and hey NCR crowd that means the faithful – not the dissidents. But what can we expect from people think an all male priesthood is a violation of gender equality. Besides gender is a grammatical term and has been corrupted when they mean sex. It is hard to argue with people whose theological thoughts are so simplistic and based on the ERA and not based on sacred scripture or sacred tradition. If they would stop whining about celibacy and start praying for men to answer their vocation we might get somewhere.

Hat tip Joe Marier on Twitter for calling my attention to this article.