Punditry

Yesterday my wife and I were down in the
Orlando area and decided to attend the Vigil Mass, at the National
Shrine of Mary, Queen of
the Universe – a Church not far from Disney World and which
primarily
serves the tourists.  I have been to their excellent gift shop
a couple of times which has a pretty good selection of solid Catholic
books along with other items.  The church itself is quite nice
looking for a modern Church though the furnishing in the sanctuary
leave something to be desired.  But the stained glass windows
are quite beautiful and the chapel is also very nice. The constructions
is such that the chapel is behind the Tabernacle that goes through the
wall and on the Chapel side they have a monstrance.  Though on
that side they also have a transparent door on the tabernacle which is
not allowed by Canon law 938.

The Mass was said by an Irish priest who
started with what I guess you could call a census (people never learn from King David).  “How many
of you are from out of town?” pretty much everybody raised their hands.
 “How many of you are from outside the U.S.?” He then
proceeded down the isle extracting country of origin from a number of
people who raised their hands.  We are no five minutes into
the Mass.  Next it was “How many are married over 50 years
please stand up.”  Followed by encouragement for applause and
then “Stand up if you are a grandparent” Here he inserts mandatory joke
about them being free babysitters.”  Then we had the
“everybody introduce yourself to the people around you .”  I
had heard of this practice at some parishes, but never had to suffer
through this false bit of community that has everybody glad handing the
other (I though this was reserved for the Kiss of Peace).  We
are now ten minutes into the start of Mass and we haven’t even got to
the confeitor yet.  Now if priests are going to act like a
Vegas lounge act can I also be a heckler?  Unfortunately a
Vegas lounge act all to accurately describes this type of behavior at
the beginning of Mass, though some do this type of thing at the end of
Mass.   He used the type of jokes that would make Hennyman
groan.

Surprisingly the rest of the Mass was
without experimentation and according to the GIRM.  The music
was also totally without standard Haugen/Haas fare with no hymns newer
than a hundred years old sung by an older gentlemen with a rich voice
as he played the organ. Though the first and last hymns were standard
Protestant ones.  The homily though was quite a different
matter.

The priest really opened my eyes to
Matthew 14 and 1st Kings 19.  The stepping out in faith of
Peter is really all about steeping out in faith in your community for
comprehensive healthcare doncha know, fair business practices, violence
and other bits of social justice.  No mention of pro-life or
other social justice items though.  But I was trying to be
fair to what the priest was saying and not to impose or read too much
into what he was saying.  Then he got to the “still small
voice” where he said he had a still small voice and that it was called
a “vote” and that we all needed to be registered to vote as he was to
exclaim your still small voice in the voting booth.  Again he
reiterated comprehensive healthcare and this time being a community
activist in your neighborhood along with the list of social justice
issues minus the social justice issues that are actually intrinsically
evil. So I guess this was the only vote for Obama homily I have had the
non-privilege of hearing.  So aren’t you all glad that you now
know that stepping out in faith means and what the still small voice is?

The National Catholic Reporter reporting
on the latest priestette “ordination” this time in a Universalist
church in Lexington, Ky. 

… She said that at the end of the
ceremony,
Sevre-Duszynska told the congregation that she often thinks of
something Dominican Sr. Marge Tuite told her many years ago: “Never
stop making the connections between sexism, racism, militarism,
nationalism and all forms of violence.”

Making those connections, Maguire said, was really the theme of the
day’s ordination. “Roy and Janice represent the merging of these
(struggles of justice), of making these connections,” Maguire
said. 

Yeah what is with that sexist Jesus guy?
 Surely he knew the
“prophetic voice” that would arise 2000 years after he was crucified
and died for our sins.  Didn’t he know that these women would
come along and interpret his will correctly for him?

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Lexington
condemned the Roman Catholic Womenpriests movement as “in opposition to
the church’s authentic teaching” and warned that “members of the
Catholic faithful should not support or participate in Saturday’s
event.” Participation in the event, “carries with it very serious penal
sanctions in Church Law,” a statement on the diocese’s Web site warned.

I read that paragraph and thought that
what the diocese was saying was not quite right since
the excommunicaton
applies to “he who shall have attempted to confer holy orders on a
woman, as well as the woman who may have attempted to receive Holy
Orders, incurs in a latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to the
Apostolic See.”  Not to everybody that participates in the
event.  In this case we just have a really badly constructed
paragraph that does not accurately reflect what
the Archbishop wrote.

In the Roman Catholic Church, only a
baptized male is capable of receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders
validly. What will take place on Saturday, August 9, 2008, has no
connection to Roman Catholic Liturgy or Sacraments and cannot in any
way be recognized as a valid reception of Sacred Orders. Simulation of
a sacrament carries with it very serious penal sanctions in Church Law.
Members of the Catholic Faithful should not support or participate in
Saturday’s event.

He certainly did not imply that imply that
all people who attended the event came under penal sanctions of Church
law.  Though certainly their support of this is quite sinful.

In a previous article NCR interviewed
Maryknoll Fr. Roy Bourgeois.

In an interview Aug. 7, two days before
the ordination, Bourgeois told NCR that he had thought long and hard
about participating after receiving an invitation to the ceremony. “I
consulted a lot of friends, I’ve done a lot of discernment, spoken with
a lot of women friends. I felt in conscience — this matter of
conscience keeps coming up and I don’t know what other word to use —
if I didn’t attend her ordination, I would have to stop addressing this
issue as I do” in speaking engagements at parishes and other Catholic
venues around the country.

Oh great he has been going around the
country supporting this falsehood.  My conscience tells me if
I ever run across this guy to give him a swift kick in the butt. Surely
he will support my conscience in this action even if it is an
impropertly formed conscience.  

“Over the years and listening to women
friends – if one listens, just shuts up and listens to their stories,
their faith journey and, in some cases, their call by God to ordination
to the priesthood in the Catholic church – there is a problem for us
guys in the church. What are we saying? God is calling us but not you?
This is heresy. We’re tampering with the sacred here.”

Hey and what about all those guys like me
who don’t have a calling to the priesthood.  God is calling
other, but not me.  This is heresy and tampering with the
sacred if every person in the world is not called to the ordained
priesthood.  I better get to the seminary fast before it fills
up with 5 billion plus people.

The hierarchy will say, “It is the
tradition of the church not to ordain women.” I grew up in a small town
in Louisiana and often heard, “It is the tradition of the South to have
segregated schools.” It was also “the tradition” in our Catholic church
to have the Black members seated in the last five pews of the church.

What a poorly catechized priest who can’t
tell the difference between so-called big-T traditions and small-T
tradition.  Or if he does it is even worse to use such an
argument to equate Apostolic Tradition with “tradition of men.”

But all this talk of equality does makes me realize something.
 Women have something I will never have (besides certain body
parts) – being called a Mother. And I am not talking about being called
a Mother with a certain expletive following it.  I am
restricted to being called a Father.  Everybody knows Fathers
Day is a second rate holiday compared to Mothers Day.  You can
imagine my hurt over the years when my children were in school and they
would have them make Mothers Day cards to take home.  Fathers
Day was deliberately put in June when school was out so that they would
never have to do this for their fathers.  What an unfair act
of discrimination!  Now I understand the role of mother is
tied with them actually giving birth to a child and so I find yet
another unfair act of discrimination  in that I can’t get
pregnant.  So I am starting the “Mens Pregnancy Conference”
and the organization “Roman Catholic Pregnant-men.”  We will
have ceremonies naming us capable of bearing children where three
midwives will place hands on our tummies and confer pregnancy on us.
 What you think this is silly?  I assure you
ontologically I can become  pregnant to the same level that
women can be ordained priests.  Oh wait.

Via The Deacon’s Bench.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)
said she, unlike other Catholic politicians who support abortion
rights, has not clashed with her church about receiving communion.

In an interview on C-SPAN that aired on Sunday, Pelosi was asked about
how some church officials have raised objections about whether former
presidential contenders — such as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and former
New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) — should receive communion.

Pelosi, a Roman Catholic whose district includes most of San Francisco,
said she has not encountered such difficulties in her church.

“I think some of it is regional,” she said, “It depends on the bishop
of a certain region and fortunately for me, communion has not been
withheld and I’m a regular communicant so that would be a severe blow
to me if that were the case.”

The hour-long interview tackled religion, which is addressed throughout
the Speaker’s new book, “Know Your Power.”

Pelosi did not directly talk about how her view on abortion is at odds
with the Catholic Church. Instead, she noted that there are many issues
that the church cares about. Pelosi said the Bible mentions poverty
over 2,000 times, and referenced the Gospel of Matthew. She also
indicated the importance of recognizing God’s creations, citing the
environment.

The Speaker, who wrote in her book that “my parents didn’t raise me to
be Speaker, they raised me to be holy,” said if more people followed
the principles of love thy neighbor and do unto others as they would do
to you, “the world would be a better place.”

It is rather sad that she has not felt
any pressure on this.  I do wonder if her Bishop Archbishop
Niederauer has ever talked to her about this at all about this?
 He has talked to her in the past, but it was about
immigration.  Last year the Archbishop said:

We haven’t had an opportunity to talk
about the life issues. I would very much welcome that opportunity, but
I don’t believe that I am in a position to say what I understand her
stand to be, if I haven’t had a chance to talk to her about it.”

I wonder if the Archbishop has heard of
Google or the myriad resources that would show her 100 percent
pro-abortion voting record. I guess the Archbishop doesn’t have the
time to discern her record, yet NARAL found the time to giver her a
100% score.  I guess having the majority leader living in your
diocese who supports many things that are intrinsically evil is
somewhere on the list.  Though for all I know maybe he has,
but if he has I wish he would be as upfront about it Naumann was with
Governor Sebelius.  In addition to the primary importance of
teh care of her soul there is also the issue of scandal to be addressed.

Mrs. Pelosi says that not receiving
Communion would be a great blow to her. Well maybe this act of charity
would get her to rethink supporting murdering the unborn.
 Look at the number of people excommunicated in Archbishop
Burke’s diocese that later were reconciled.  I guess as long
as ecclesial disciplines are shown as a punishment instead of as an aid
to help someone to repent we will continue to have such a negative
reaction to denial of Communion and excommunications.

I find it interesting that the media seems
to enjoy what they call the “Communion wars” and that they really build
it up when a pro-abortion politician is denied Communion or it is even
talked about.  They see that it is wrong for them to be denied
Communion and that giving them Communion is very important.
 Yet when some professor desecrate a host, then they really
don’t want to cover it at all.  The Eucharist is only
important to them when it comes to pro-abortion politicians.

Fr. John Mallow, SDB posts.

The State of California no longer
recognizes brides and grooms. I’m just doing a Marriage License for one
of this weekend’s weddings.

Where it used to say “Bride” and “Groom” it now says “Party A” and
“Party B.”

What no “Party C”, “Party
D”, “Party E”, “Party F”, …?  How
intolerant are those Californians?

Rich
Leonardi reports the latest news on the Sr.
Anne parish “Father” Joan pastoral administrator debacle.

The woman you are speaking about also
was seen wearing a t-shirt with an image of the nativity scene with one
major alteration – the words ‘Its a girl!’ and the Crucifix she wears
is different as well – the Corpus is not Christ, but clearly a woman.
She also shared in a meeting that she has been waiting since the 1970s
for the Church to ordain women and she thinks the time is finally upon
us. A letter is on the way to the Papal Nuncio’s office if it has not
yet arrived and attached are several signatures of eye-witnesses to
this nonsense.

Rich previously reported on what a now former  parishioner
had to say.

At the “third informational meeting”
held before she was officially acting as the administrator, she made 2
statements, in front of a good size representation of the congregation,
when asked if some of the previous traditional liturgical practices
would remain the same at Saint Anne’s. She replied, “I AM what I AM and
it IS what it IS”.

When asked about wanting to become a priest, she announced quite
boldly, “It is no secret that since 1975, I have wanted to become a
priest.” When asked by a parishoner if she understood that this was
against the acceptance of the Catholic Church, she told the parishoner
that he was “out of line”. This was very confusing to many of us, as we
still cannot figure out exactly what or who, it IS she THINKS she IS.

I wonder how many people in this diocese have the date of the Bishop’s
75th Clarks birthday memorized?

London, Jul. 28, 2008 (CNA/CWNews.com)
– The largest Catholic adoption agency in England and Wales has decided
to implement an adoption policy that does not rule out same-sex couples
in the face of new laws that forbid such screening. The change in its
adoption policy was made with the full support of the bishops who
oversee the agency.

The decision, made by the Catholic Children’s Society of Arundel and
Brighton, Portsmouth and Southwark (A&BSP) means the society
will not turn away any homosexual couples who present themselves as
potential adopters.

Terry Connor, chief executive of the society, explained to The Universe
that any changes would not start until January and were a direct result
of the recent Sexual Orientation Regulations which enforced “rights”
for same sex couples who wish to adopt.

The move will undoubtedly be seen as controversial in some quarters. In
January 2007, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor wrote to the-then Prime
Minister Tony Blair suggesting that Catholic adoption agencies in
England and Wales would be forced to close down if they were not
allowed to opt out of new gay rights laws, which he said contradicted
Catholic teaching.

The cardinal said forcing people to act against their consciences would
mean discrimination on the grounds of belief, adding that it would be
an “unnecessary tragedy” if Catholic agencies were forced to
close. 

Remind me again why we have martyrs in the
Church?  I guess
caving to an unjust law is quite acceptable, hey what was St. Thomas
More thinking?

So much for what then-Cardinal Ratzinger
wrote in Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give
Legal  Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons

As experience has shown, the absence of
sexual complementarity in these
unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who
would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of
the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to
be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing
violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of
dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not
conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and
in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests
of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the
paramount consideration in every case.

In contrast to the rest of the writers for the National Catholic Reporter, John Allen Jr. turns in a good column on Humanae Vitae for the New York TImes.

A reader points to the comment section at Commonweal on this article. Pretty sad that a reporter being faithful to Church teaching is so derided.

I am a bit surprised that John Allen’s Sunday Times op-ed has not yet occasioned comment at dotCom. I found it disappointing and, at points, quite strange-I’ll try to say more about why later. In the meantime, pop over to Pontifications for David Gibson’s astute analysis:

Yes not being a dissident on contraception is “disappointing” and “quite strange” for the Commonweal crowd. I guess following Vatican II and giving “Religious submission of mind and of will” to this teaching is not for “thinking” Catholics. David Gibson’s astute analysis is nothing of the kind but pablum. When you have to refer to Steinfell and McBrien you know you are on shaky ground.

Father Z does an excellent fisk of
a editorial from the National Catholic Reporter staff marking the 40th
anniversary of Humanae Vitae.  As you would expect they didn’t
break out a birthday cake to celebrate this anniversary, but snipe at
it instead. Like most gutless progressives they never actually deny the
teaching they just try to give it the death of a thousand cuts by
trying to undermine how the encyclical happened and then the reaction to
it.

So the great theological reasoning they
give us is polling.  As I have said before the only poll in
the New Testament only Peter got it right and he had help.
 Once again we get the whole “lived experience” thing as if
this is any kind of criteria that has ever been used in the history of
Christendom.  Should we appeal to the lived experience of the
Church when many of it’s members had fallen into Arianism?
 Hey many Catholics are not much into sacrificial giving and
the preferential love of the poor so I guess we should dump these ideas
because of the lived experience.  When it comes to the
teaching Jesus gave us on adultery there is as NCR would put it “a gulf
between official church teachings and Catholic practice.”  How
about loving our enemies?  Once again the “lived experience”
of Catholics does not match the doctrine.

So I guess we need to stop giving to the
needy, that we don’t need to love the poor and we can wish ill for our
enemies.  Plus since we don’t love one another as Christ has
loved us we also don’t have to love one another to a a more perfected
degree.  Most people do not pick up their crosses daily, but
try to run from them so we can throw that doctrine on the fire along
with the others. Hey Christianity gets easier and easier to practice
everyday.  Just dump the doctrines that are difficult and it
is suprisingly easy.

“The Christian ideal has not been tried
and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.” –
G.K. Chesterton

But for the National Catholic Reporter it
is the negative reaction and living apart from Church teaching that is
the criteria as to whether a doctrine is true or not.  Not
scripture, apostolic tradition, nor the magisterium – but polling.
 Gallop eccelesiology is rather a strange view of how the
Church arrives at her doctrines.

The dishonesty of their article is
staggering.  They set up a strawman argument that was a parady
of what Pope Paul Vi said and then say that it was the main thrust of
the encyclical.  They describe everything in terms of power as
most dissidents see the Church.  They never address the
predictions that the encyclical made and have all come true.
 No mention of the state  of family life since the
wide-spread use of contraceptives. No mention of the further
degradation of women.  I guess the breakdown of the family and
increased divorce is beneath the notice of the NCR.  Though
rampant divorce and destruction of the family is not the “lived
experience” so now I guess should become doctrine.