In this week’s installment of wacky looking chapels – here is the Chapel of St. Ignatius at Seattle University.
Tabernacle or birdhouse? You decide.
Update: Oops I confused Tabernacle on the bottom with sanctuary light that was hung.
Please don’t hire architects that have flashbacks from sixties drug use. Though at night it looks less ugly, but still funky.
The sanctuary is rather sparse, but at least there is a decent crucifix to the side and one picture the lighting is pretty cool.
Today the President spoke at Georgetown University about the economy which I guess part of his tour of Catholic Universities. The President of Georgetown John DeGioia being totally irony impaired in his introduction included this:
We as a people will only be equal to the demands of the day if we stand up for the marginalize, the powerless, and those without a voice.
Unless they are in the womb then we can marginalize and in fact kill those without a voice. In fact prevent them from ever having a voice. Hard to think of anybody more powerless than those human person in the womb.
Dawn Eden reports about something else missing besides the mention of Jesus.
No, Jesus’ very name, in the form of the ancient monogram IHS, which had been in gold lettering on the wooden archway above Gaston Hall’s dais, was painted over prior to Obama’s arrival. Apparently, the Name that is above every other name is not permitted to be above Obama.
The photo above shows the archway “before.” You can see the “after” clearly in C-SPAN’s video, as Georgetown President John DeGioia emerges to give his fawning introduction.
(I became aware of the cover-up after the speech, when it was pointed out by pro-life advocate Larry Cirignano in an e-mail forwarded to me. Whether Georgetown University initiated it or did it at the request of the White House is unknown at this time.)
Update: There is some question as to whether IHS was painted over or just covered over as is done at other events.
There has not been as big of reaction to the Presidents’ visit at Georgetown as there was to the Notre Dame invite. Though maybe it is partially because many Catholics have already given up on Georgetown. Or at least hold zero surprise at the invite, especially since candidate Obama was previously invited. Georgetown holds onto some vestiges of the Cathoilc faith in a tribal, but mostly not meaningful way as an institution.
Since President Obama can give speeches on the economy maybe I can get a speaking gig for discussing brain surgery, rocket science, or anything else I know next-to-nothing about.
There were some who criticized me for my less than exuberant feeling about Tony Blair’s entrance into the Church. Here is an I told you so.
ony Blair has challenged the “entrenched” attitudes of the Pope on homosexuality, and argued that it is time for him to “rethink” his views.
Speaking to the gay magazine Attitude, the former Prime Minister, himself now a Roman Catholic, said that he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal, and suggested that in time this would make all religious groups accept gay people as equals.
Asked about the Pope’s stance, Mr Blair blamed generational differences and said: “We need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.”
“…There are many good and great things the Catholic Church does, and there are many fantastic things this Pope stands for, but I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic Church, particularly a well-attended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you’d be surprised at how liberal-minded people were.” The faith of ordinary Catholics is rarely found “in those types of entrenched attitudes”, he said.[reference]
It seemed to me at the time that Mr. Blair had done nothing to repent of and recant what he had done as Prime Minister that was gravely evil. Part of repairing the damage one has done is to do something to correct it, something that there has been no sign of. Though I hold Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor more responsible for bringing him into the Church probably knowing that he would perjure himself in saying that he accepted all that the Church taught. A high-profile convert such as Tony Blair only brings scandal until such that that I pray he repents.
William M. Daley– son of legendary Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley, brother of current mayor Richard M. Daley, US commerce secretary from 1997 to 2000, chairman of Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, co-chairman of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and a Catholic– has harshly criticized Cardinal Francis George for opposing the University of Notre Dame’s decision to award President Barack Obama an honorary degree. “Cardinal Francis George recently said this invitation is an embarrassment to Catholics because the president disagrees with church doctrine on abortion and stem-cell research,” writes Daley. “But I believe Cardinal George’s stand is an embarrassment to Chicago Catholics and furthers the divide among the church, its members and the rest of America.”
I guess that explains the petition with over 234,000 thousand signatures condemning Cardinal George – oh wait the petition is a against the Presidents invite. Rather funny about a Daley discussing what is an embarrassment to Chicago.
The friends of dissent and heresy, the National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN), is awarding its Margaret Ellen Traxler Award to Sister Louise Lears. Just to make sure we are aware that this public honor is not given in ignorance of her canonical censure, NCAN’s announcement describes Sr. Lears as “placed under interdict by Archbishop Raymond Burke on June 26, 2008 for her support of the priestly ordination of two women”.
NCAN (and I am sure the N should stand for nutty) also supports dissident Rev. Roy Bourgeois and others. Make a stand against Church teaching and I guess you are in running for an award from them.
Hat tip to St. Louis Catholic.
Sometimes bad reporting on the Catholic Church is just plain funny for being so bad.
And nowhere is the full impact of the Knights of Columbus’ efforts felt than in the fight against awarding same-sex couples marriage rights.
In what turned out to be the largest total contribution from a single organization, $1.4 million of the Yes on 8 campaign’s coffers came from the tax-exempt Knights of Columbus, based in New Haven, Connecticut. The Catholic Church operates its legislative efforts through the little understood entity, of which nearly all Catholic bishops and priests are members.
Whaaat? “The Catholic Church operates its legislative efforts through the little understood entity”? I guess there is a red phone for the special line between the Pope and the Supreme Knight to discuss their strategies for legislative efforts.
Obscure Catholic group
On its Web site the group proclaims itself as “the strong right arm of the Catholic Church.”
To LGBT activist Jerry Sloan, the group is “an obscure and uniquely tax-exempt insurance company acting under the guise of a fraternal order.”
Rather, one IRS qualifier for the tax-exempt code states, “membership must be limited.” Like the priesthood, the Knights of Columbus membership is restricted to Catholic men. (Oh No! But rather ironic criticism from a male homosexual activist) Among those men are “almost every, if not all, bishops and most priests,” explained Korten.
I don’t know the percentage of Bishops/Priests are part of the KoC, but this sounds like hyperbole.
Diogenes responds to those defending the parish worker fired by Bishop Morlino. The parish worker whose thesis called for women priest.
1. Kolpack’s contention that she was not allowed to defend herself is refuted by her claim that Morlino was prepared to let her keep her job if she professed Catholic doctrine. That’s to say, if she was falsely accused of heterodoxy, she could have cleared things up to everybody’s satisfaction by a profession of faith.
2. Kolpack’s “accusers” are likely to be CCD students who came home from her classes with ideas distressing to their parents. Does she really think those eleven or twelve-year-olds should be brought in to confront her?
3. Morlino is obliquely criticized for using Kolpack’s Master’s thesis as a gauge of her convictions. But Kolpack denied the accusations of heterodoxy. Well, child-abusing priests characteristically deny the accusations of abuse. So should a bishop throw up his hands, call it a stalemate, and go home? No, he looks further for impartial testimony. In this case, Morlino was able to refer to an objective and undeniable record of Kolpack’s opinions: her own writing.
4. Morlino has a doctorate in moral theology from Rome’s Gregorian University. While he might well have asked Kolpack to recant her thesis, he would not have asked her to “denounce” it (which is subliterate) or to “refute” it (which is absurd).
5. Kolpack claims that a recantation would put at risk “her reputation as a scholar and academician.” What reputation? A Google search draws a total blank. The fact that she calls herself an academician rather than an academic (which is what she meant) proves that she is neither. There’s nothing wrong with that, but as a motive for her refusal to renounce heresy it’s far-fetched to the point of disingenuousness.
Tonight The Simpson’s had Lisa enter a convent to get Maggie back in a parody of the Da Vinci Code. The back history was St. Teresa of Avia on her deathbed talking about some gem that was to be found.
The Da Vinci Code has plenty to parody, though the Simpson episode didn’t really tap that rich vein. Instead a rather stupid plot was persued where her nuns went to the new world to seek a gem from a vision and then running into Masons also seeking it. Episode wasn’t really anti-Catholic – just stupid and I am not sure why they picked on St. Teresa of Avila. Bad enough that they couldn’t even get the color of the Carmelite habit, but history-wise they had her death a the time of the founding of the U.S. which didn’t happen to well over a hundred years later. Though then again it was just a Simpson episode.
The Anchoress posts at the First Things blog about Sr. Sandra M. Schneiders and what she had previously written in an email that got published in regards to the recently announced apostolic visitation of women’s communities in America.
I saw this yesterday at the National Catholic Reporter and Sr. Schneiders email quite irked me, though I figured it would be good not to post on it while “irked.”
I am not inclined to get into too much of a panic about this investigation–which is what it is . . . I do not put any credence at all in the claim that this is friendly, transparent, aimed to be helpful, etc. It is a hostile move and the conclusions are already in. It is meant to be intimidating. But I think if we believe in what we are doing (and I definitely do) we just have to be peacefully about our business, which is announcing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, fostering the Reign of God in this world. We cannot, of course, keep them from investigating. But we can receive them, politely and kindly, for what they are, uninvited guests who should be received in the parlor, not given the run of the house. When people ask questions they shouldn’t ask, the questions should be answered accordingly.
So read what The Anchoress has to say on this first since she puts it quite well. But to give a taste:
Sister and her associates seem to have birthed a form of Religious Life that no longer receives “everyone as Christ” but parcels out the hospitality like upper-crust dames who will nod at the social climbers (and even condescend to having them to tea, if it will dispense with an obligation) but who will have the place fumigated once the undeserving have finally been shown the door. Sounds like she’ll count the teaspoons, too.
Can you hear the obedience and humility from the tone of this letter. If you can you have much better hearing than myself. I do wonder what are the questions they shouldn’t ask. My guess would be “Don’t ask us about faithfulness to the Magisterium.” Though I do have to remind myself not to think of these communities as whole blocks because there are faithful Catholics living in these communities where what has happened has been a major cross for them.
I remember when I first read the sisters piece I had quite a good laugh at the following.
I have come to the conclusion that Congregations like ours [the kind represented by the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) in this country] have, in fact, birthed a new form of Religious Life.
Yes a form of Religious Life that does not reproduce itself (thankfully). Progressives have sometimes been called mules because of the fact that there way of life is quite sterile and attracts so few vocations to their way of religious life. When religious life becomes just social work then why take vows? just become a social worker. Blessed Mother Teresa quite disliked when people thought of her work with the poor as just social work.
Well, that’s where I am on this. I refuse to go into a panic over it. There are better things to do. Always glad to hear from any of you on any of this.
What an attitude to take concerning an Apostolic Visitation. Guilty conscience? Surely they realize they have become hotbeds of dissent. If the Democratic Party has monastic life it would be identical to most of these communities. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say if the U.N. had monastic communities since their websites always have links to the U.N. and almost never to the Vatican and I am not just being snide here.
Jesus said “By their fruits you will know them.” Dissent and shrinking communities has been the fruit. They have been pavers of good intentions. That being said, we should pray for Mother Clare Millea, who is leading the visitation project and for the religious communities. I have to admit that when I first read of the apostolic visitation of women’s communities in America I was thinking “Smack down!”, which is not the right attitude for a follower of Christ. So I will go with “Thy will be done” in regards to the visitation instead.
Diogenes has some good questions in response to a Newsweek/Washington Post article by Aloysious Mowe, SJ calling the Church’s theology and discipline sexist and misogynist.
Here’s what I don’t understand. An agnostic or atheist or radical libertarian treats the Church’s claims with skepticism because he has declared himself immune from her authority. Fine. On its own terms that makes sense. But how can a Catholic — and still more a Catholic priest — make use of this skepticism? More to the point: having picked up the tool of skepticism to undercut doctrine A and doctrine B, how does he put it down again to accept as valid doctrines C through Z? If I claim the Church is wrong about, say, the sacrament of Orders — whereas the common opinion of my own social class in my own time has it right — how can I know the Church is a reliable teacher regarding those doctrines I cherish, such as the duty of charity, or the universal destination of goods, or the Resurrection? How can I know these doctrines won’t themselves be exposed as frauds twenty years from now? How can I acquit myself of that self-serving arbitariness I impute to the apostles and the Church fathers?
I have often wondered the same thing. They dig out the foundation of the Catholic faith and then want to stand on empty air proclaiming themselves Catholics. If the Church can get foundational things wrong then only a fool would follow her. The only reason to be Catholic is because it is true – that’s it. I just don’t understand what their ecclesiology can possibly mean other than just being a form of Catholic tribalism. If I believed what they believed of the Church I would denounce the Church as evil and would want no part of it. The Protestant so-called Reformers were at least honest in realizing their theology of the Church was quite at odds with the Church.