Punditry

NAPLES — President-elect Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, are appearing in Italian nativity scenes this year, alongside the baby Jesus and wise men, according to Naples craftsmen selling figurines in the run-up to Christmas.[article]

Well I guess we should be happy they are not replacing Jesus with the Obama child in swaddling clothes. Surprised they at least didn’t have him down as one of the wiseman. Surely his pal Gov. Blagojevich could sell a wise man seat to him. Obama would be better cast as King Herod the Great with the murder of the innocents.

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer was almost grounded at Murrayville Elementary School this week after a parent complained about the classic Christmas song’s inclusion in her daughter’s upcoming kindergarten concert.

The objecting parent was upset about the words “Christmas” and “Santa” in the song, feeling that they carried religious overtones.

That prompted the song to be pulled from the upcoming holiday concert, which in turn upset more parents.

…”They have clearly decided that any other religion or custom is not important,” the objecting parent said after learning about the reversal on “Rudolph.” She asked that her name not be published, to shield her daughter’s identity.

The mother, who is Jewish, said she was trying to have a Hanukkah song added to the musical lineup but had not received a return phone call about it from school officials by mid-afternoon Friday. [article]

We seem to get these stories more and more every year. Multiculturalism and tolerance only leads to thin skins and perceived offenses found everywhere. Finding offense though in a song developed for Montgomery Ward only proves how silly this trend has become.

It is also rather sad that the most religious song they had for Christmas was Rudolf in the first place. We have turned into a culture looking for slights at every opportunity. Survival of the whinniest. There are certainly things in the culture to be offended at, but demanding a Hanukkah song to balance a song about a reindeer with a luminous birth defect is just plain dumb. Though what is even more dumb in those in the schools that accede to such requests instead of laughing them off. The idea of some kind of quota for a concert is also wrong. I would have no problem with including a Hanukkah song, but it shouldn’t be done in this PC mindset. Will school concerts have to also include songs on primordial ooze to satisfy atheist parents?

When I was an atheist singing in a choir I had no problem singing religious hymns even if they were predominantly Christian with some Jewish ones. I loved the songs that were musically solid songs. The modern atheist seems to be a weaker atheist. The new atheist go around demanding that they never have to hear of religion and demand pathetic little signs wherever there is a public nativity. Though I would also have a problem with those who remove those atheist’s signs. Though maybe their signs evolve and develop legs and walk of by themselves. Atheist signs on a bus don’t disturb me and signs of religion shouldn’t disturb them.

As dumb as public schools are in their decisions we get stories like this.

Enduring favourites such as Hark the Herald Angels Sing and God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen are being altered by clergy to make them more “modern and inclusive”.

But churchgoers say there is no need to change the popular carols and complain that the result is a “festive car crash” if not everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.

It comes just a day after a Church of England vicar banned his congregation from singing O Little Town of Bethlehem because he believed its words do not reflect the suffering endured by modern residents of Jesus’s birthplace.

Another clergyman has rewritten the Twelve Days of Christmas to include Aids victims, drug addicts and hoodies.

Among the “theologically-modified, politically-corrected” carols encountered by visitors to the website are Hark the Herald Angels Sing in which the line “Glory to the newborn King” has been replaced by “Glory to the Christ child, bring”.

The well-known refrain of O Come All Ye Faithful – “O come let us adore Him” – has also been changed in one church to “O come in adoration”, both changes apparently made for fear the original was sexist.

“[One reader] wrote in asking if the original line was considered too gender-specific,” Mr Goddard said. “But as he rightly pointed out, Jesus wasn’t hermaphrodite, neither was he a girl.”

Churchgoers at one carol service will not be allowed to sing the words “all in white” during Once in Royal David’s City in case they appear racist, while another cleric has removed the word “virgin” from God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen. [article]

Political correctness does the opposite of bringing people together. A forced conformity that is not conformity at all. Whether it is religion or gender we have created a society of people looking for an offense to be upset about.

A school choir was forced to withdraw from a Christmas event because organisers branded its carols ‘too religious’.
Around 60 children aged between seven and 11 had spent six weeks practising favourites including Once In Royal David’s City and Silent Night for the Corringham Winter Festival.
But they were let down at the last minute when their headteacher was informed their programme did not ‘dovetail’ with the festival’s theme. [article]

How dare they use a religious reference like “dove” which can refer to the Holy Spirit! We need to go back to the French Enlightenment which renamed the days of the week and increased the number of them to avoid Sunday as a day of rest. In fact the word Festival which they are using is from the Latin Festivus (predates Seinfeld) referring to Feast which has historical Catholic overtones. Come on if they are going to wipe every religious significance they need to do a much better job. They need to have Spring, Summer, and Fall occasions also and not just celebrations of Winter which give a seasonal bias and seasonal exceptionalism and still point to the event they are trying to erase.

The culture is trying to bring about a case of cultural amnesia where celebrating the birth of Christ must be replaced by some vague amorphous feeling where for some unknown reason we are suppose to have nice comfy thoughts tied to a season of the year. We are to be given our pottage and we are to enjoy it! So what if the modern thought is a deprivation compared to what went before it. That the coming of Christ which was the biggest thing that ever happened is to be replaced in the name of multiculturalism that is to contain any culture but a Christian derived one. As G.K. Chesterton said “Paganism was the largest thing in the world and Christianity was larger; and everything else has been comparatively small.” I say secularism is one of the smallest things in the world and it makes us smaller when we embrace it.

Tony Blair (pictured) has now teamed up with one of Canada’s best-known pro-abortion figures. Belinda Stronach (also pictured), a prominent businesswoman and former MP, has joined her foundation with Mr Blair’s Faith Foundation in order to promote the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The British government under Tony Blair interpreted the MDGs as including a universal right to abortion on demand. When an MP, Belinda Stronach said that women’s groups should only receive government funding if they are pro-abortion. The Blair-Stronach partnership will also promote the Faith Acts Fellowship, which the Tony Blair Faith Foundation runs in partnership with the InterFaith Youth Core. The InterFaith Youth Core is bankrolled by major pro-abortion foundations.

How much more evidence do religious leaders need about the close-knit ties of Mr & Mrs Blair to the culture of death before they realise they must act to block the Blairs’ infiltration of faith communities? [source]

No surprises here for this recent Catholic “convert”.

On today’s Laura Ingraham show she interviewed Newsweek Religion Editor Lisa Miller about her recent article making the religious case for homosexual marriage. Miller’s defense was quite laughable. At one point when asked by Laura Ingraham about St. Paul’s references to homosexuality, Lisa Miller replied that the same scripture also condemned drunkenness, adultery, and divorce.

Now I thought that was a rather odd reply, especially when she said drunks can get married (though they might actually be psychological impaired to be able to actually give consent). Laura Ingraham pressed her on drunkenness, adultery, and divorce and weren’t they all bad things? The answer was lots of people get divorced. With that kind of logic we might as well get rid of laws since lots of people break them.

Now this might seem an incoherent argument, but this understanding has natural consequences. It is really only the Catholic Church that defends marriage and properly sees what marriage actually is. Protestant denominations for the most part have quite accepted divorce in a way reminiscent of Moses who allowed it because of their “hardness of heart” as Jesus said. We really should be having state constitutional changes on banning no fault divorce which is one of the most destructive things in human history. With rampant fornication, adultery, divorce and “remarriage” in a hook-up culture we can’t be surprised that the definition of marriage has fallen on hard times. The sacred character of marriage is that it is an indissoluble union. A a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children demands total fidelity. Turn on the TV or look at the culture and it would be really hard to extrapolate the meaning of marriage.

With the culture having such an improper understanding of marriage it is no wonder that so many can see no problem with same-sex marriage. Contraception and abortion are making heterosexual sex just as sterile as homosexual sex. When children as one of the two purposes of marriage are excluded it is easy to see how same-sex marriage can seem valid. Sex gets reduced to just mutual pleasure with no meaning beyond gratification.

The natural law can certainly lead us to an understanding of the two aims of marriage. Though the Newsweek article said it was making the “religious” case for it. Though actually they were making a progressive Christian argument for it since they did not address other religions or in fact provide arguments from those opposed to their conclusion. They were using scripture from both Testaments, yet somehow never got around the commandment to be fruitful which is impossible with same-sex sexual acts. No doubt homosexual apologists will point to heterosexual couples who are sterile, but this misses the fact that in their case something biological is not working properly. It is a defect which in some cases can be remedied. Whereas homosexual acts can never lead to children by its very nature.

There are so many things I love about the Catholic Church, and one of them is the consistency of her teachings. She can condemn homosexually, contraception, IVF, divorce, masturbation, fornication, etc; based on the actual meaning of marriage as taught by Jesus. Sex within marriage is the only valid context for sex and the sexual act must never be formally separated from the possibility of procreation. The last sentence provides the basis for all of the Church’s teaching on human sexuality. When you separate sex from procreation (or vice versa) and/or allow sex outside of marriage all of the other errors necessarily follow.

Lisa Miller also referenced during the interview Psalm 139 which she called a “beautiful psalm” as evidence for support of homosexuality. This was from the reference to Fr. James Martin, S.J. she made in the original article. Fr. Martin commented on my blog about this reference. Though his comment was actually a reply to something Diogenes asked about whether he thought Jesus was still alive and clarified by saying Jesus if he was walking the Earth in physical form “would likewise reach out to the marginalized today, a group that would include gays and lesbians.” Jesus reaches out to all of us and part of that reaching out is calling us to repentance and saying “Go and sin no more.” Though I would add part of that marginalized group would be those who defend the Church teaching on sexual ethics. It is much more likely that someone objecting to homosexuality will be persecuted and even sued than someone with same-sex attraction. We can easily look to the Proposition 8 witch hunt being used against those who supported it in California as am example.

I would like to see some further clarification from Fr. Martin. Father linked to the Newsweek article on the America Magazine blog and gave no caveats as to what was quoted of him. My simple questions is does he believe that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered as the Church has always taught? For the most part I really enjoyed his book “Life with the Saints” and some of the articles he has written, it just annoys me when someone seems to skirt an issue instead of providing clarity.

Fr. Philip Powell, OP has the same reaction that I did to the Newsweek story.

“The question I would love to ask the writer is: if your thesis is true, why in 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian religious history has there never been a single instance of a same-sex ‘marriage’ being celebrated as exemplary for Christians and Jews? You would think that if scripture is pressing the point that love and fidelity are more important that the sex of the couple, then one very powerful way of showing this would be to give us an example of a loving, faithful same-sex marriage. Yet, none exist. And we must be careful not to confuse same-sex friendships (Jonathan and David) with sexually active, religiously recognized, sacramental marriages celebrated in the Bible.”

He makes the point I was trying to make much better. While negative evidence doesn’t provide much of a proof, the total lack of reference to something that is suppose to be part of God’s will for human sexuality is rather odd. I guess in their view that God being the author of scripture needs an editor since he managed to leave out and positive reference to something normative.

Diogenes references another part of the article:

My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God’s knowledge of our most secret selves: “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for “Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad.” Let the priest’s prayer be our own.

And then replies:

“If Jesus were alive today …” The blunder invites the obvious response: Has Jesus died AGAIN? Why weren’t we told?

Miller does not put those words in quotation marks, and it’s a reasonable conjecture that they represent her own obtuseness rather than Fr. Martin’s. But there’s an important doctrinal point to be made. Jesus IS alive, and he speaks to us, today, through his Vicar, the successor of Peter. Such is the conviction of Catholics. And that Vicar has made it radiantly clear that sodomy is contrary to God’s will and that marriage is effected between, and only between, a man and a woman.

I would be interested to know if Fr. Martin feels that what was quoted is an accurate assessment of what he said. Diogenes makes some excellent points that Jesus is alive and acts through the Church. The Church is reaching out to those who suffer with same-sex attraction. Groups like Courage help those with same-sex attraction lead lives of holiness and to be chaste as we are all called to be chaste. But too many people equate reaching out with rubber-stamping approval of homosexual acts. Calling someone to repentance is a spiritual act of mercy and they do no favors by going along with the culture and denying that homosexual acts are sinful.

If someone actually did try to use Psalm 139 to relate to as a defense for homosexuality then if it proves anything it proves too much. You can just as well say those with a wandering eye and who commit lust in their hearts or even pursue their lusts are also wonderfully made. That all of us sinners are wonderfully made. We are truly “beautifully made” yet through the sin of Adam, sin came into the world. We all suffer with the concupiscence of the heart and can choose sin despite being made in the image and likeness of God. The Blessed Virgin Mary was Immaculately Conceived and as Fr. Pacwa jokingly points out “God doesn’t make that model anymore.”

When Newsweek does scriptural exegesis you know it is going to be a laugh riot. This time it is to lambaste religious conservatives for using scripture to defend marriage.

You can just about guess the approach they will take. Yes they went the polygamy route. As if the Old Testament had glowing support of polygamy, when in actuality scripture showed how it always lead to problems. Yes the stories of Jacob’s wives and how Solomon’s wives lead him to sin are endorsement of a scriptural view of polygamy.

They even go on to say that Jesus never defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Matthew 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery." The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry."

I guess referring to Adam and Eve as the original intent of marriage is too hard to grasp or that male and female are always the related terms. Funny how in all of salvation history there are zero examples of homosexual relationships portrayed positively. Rather strange if homosexual acts are part of God’s plan.

But Sola Scriptura used by secular reporters will go just as stray as when used by Protestants. They can cherry pick verses or just give different interpretations to verses harder to ignore and say such nonsense as:

… condemnation of men who "were inflamed with lust for one another" (which he calls "a perversion") is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery.

This from a person they call a "progressive theologian." Of course a progressive theologian is one that explains away scripture instead of explaining it.

Though the whole article with their use of scripture and quoting only those who agree with their premise means zero to Catholics anyway. It is scripture and apostolic tradition as interpreted by the magisterium that is the key to Catholics anyway, or at least for Catholics that understand the nature of the Church. Opposition to homosexual acts and same-sex marriage is something that can be learned from the natural law without resorting to scripture.

But this type of article from Newsweek Religion Editor Lisa Miller is nothing new, just more of the same.

THE NEW Superior General of the Jesuits, Fr Adolfo Nicolás Pachón, has spoken out in defence of liberation theology, writes Jon Stibbs.

In an interview with the Spanish national El Periódico, the Spaniard described liberation theology as “a courageous and creative response to an unbearable situation of injustice in Latin America”. Fr Nicolás regretted that the South American based movement had not been given a “vote of confidence” from other church leaders. “It needs more time,” he said.

While liberation theology was becoming established in South America Fr Nicolás was working in Asia where he developed a reputation as a liberal. He defines the Jesuits’ work as helping “the poor, the marginalised and the excluded”, and has said he is more interested in missionaries’ “cultural dialogue with local people” than imposing doctrinal orthodoxy. [reference]

I guess that he then also regrets the smackdown on Liberation Theology written by then-Cardinal Josef Ratzinger.

I guess he didn’t get the hint from Pope Benedict XVI when he spoke to the Jesuits shortly after the election of the new Jesuit General when he said “that harmony with the magisterium that avoids causing confusion and uncertainty among the People of God.” Nd referring to all members of the Society of Jesus said they should “adhere completely to the Word of God as well as to the magisterium’s charge of conserving the truth and unity of Catholic doctrine in its entirety.” I guess the new fourth vow is to undermine the magisterium on theology.

I prefer “Libation Theology.” Take a drink every time a Jesuit dissents from the Pope.

Fr. John Malloy, SDB reports that Mr. Carrizosa who is an acolyte and lector at San Francisco’s infamous Most Holy Redeemer parish has “married” his male partner. He also reports that by his count this makes five people serving liturgical roles in the parish as having gotten “married.”

Father than quotes from “Redemptionis Sacramentum” #46

“The lay Christian faithful called to give assistance at liturgical celebrations should be well instructed and must be those whose Christian life, morals and fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium recommend them.”

Archbishop George H. Niederauer has written a letter in response to the aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8 in California which ends saying.

…Tolerance, respect, and trust are always two-way streets, and tolerance respect and trust often do not include agreement, or even approval. We need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. We need to stop talking as if we are experts on the real motives of people with whom we have never even spoken. We need to stop hurling names like “bigot” and “pervert” at each other. And we need to stop it now.

For our part, we churchgoers need to speak and act out of the truth that all people are God’s children and are unconditionally loved by God. While we argue among ourselves, the people who need our help with hunger, unemployment, homelessness and other problems wait for us to turn together toward them. More particularly, we Catholics in the Archdiocese of San Francisco need to minister to the needs of all Catholics in this local Church. Whoever they are, and whatever their circumstances, their spiritual and pastoral rights should be respected, together with their membership in the Church. In that spirit, with God’s grace and much prayer, perhaps we can all move forward together.

The aftermath has been rather ugly including the keeping of blacklists on people who supported it. I guess in Hollywood blacklists are now okay and pretty soon we will have a House Committee on Un-Homosexual Activities

I like the basic thrust of the Bishop’s letter which as a pastoral letter is aimed at those with same-sex attraction. I do wish it was beefier on what the Church teaches.

The fact remains that, under California law, after the passage of Proposition 8, same sex couples who register as domestic partners will continue to have “the same rights, protections and benefits” as married couples. Proposition 8 simply recognizes that there is a difference between traditional marriage and a same sex partnership.

Though the truth is that Church also condemns so-called civil unions.

It is highly ironic that homosexual activists want to force people who believe that homosexual activity is sinful and are concerned for their souls should not have their opinion in public and should be forced into the closet. One video of a group of homosexuals following and shouting down a Christian group was also highly ironic. At one point one of them says “How dare they come into our neighborhood.” Tolerance has been turned into a blunt instrument forcing unanimity of opinion. A one way street is Tolerance Ave. Unfortunately any disapproval of homosexual acts is branded as homophobia and hatred and no other possible motive is allowed.

As then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote.

…There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”

…Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered” and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”

Though praying for those who suffer with the heavy cross of same-sex attraction is now considered hatred.