Punditry

Episcopalians, Unitarian Universalists, rabbis, a Methodist and even a Catholic priest walk into a bar. Oh wait this isn’t a setup for a joke.

…Episcopalians, Unitarian Universalists, rabbis, a Methodist and even a Catholic priest are planning to bless some same-sex marriages when they are set to become legal in California on Monday.

Catholics have long rejected homosexuality, and the Pope issued a statement a day after the court’s ruling affirming that marriage is suitable only between one man and one woman.

…Bishop Allen Vigneron of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland has written a letter which has been interpreted as urging his flock to oppose the November ballot initiative: “As faithful citizens, Catholics are called to bring our laws regarding marriage into conformity with what we know about the nature of marriage,” he wrote.

Kerry Chaplin, a director at California Faith for Equality, a group which fights for same-sex marriage rights, says she knows at least one Catholic priest who will be marrying people and one Methodist minister who will defy her church’s doctrine and bless same-sex marriages next week.

Antonio Salas, coordinator of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Catholics group at Newman Hall Holy Spirit parish in Berkeley, said he knows of renegade priests who have performed religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

“The greatest sin is to sin against your conscience. With an informed conscience, you can dissent from the church’s teaching,” Salas said.

Here I thought the greatest sin was the sin against the Holy spirit – the sin of final impenitence. Though I must say that the statement that with an informed conscience you can dissent against Church teaching to almost be funny if it wasn’t so sad. That your conscience agrees with Church teaching is the measure that it is properly formed. If your conscience though tells you Church teaching is wrong then shouldn’t your conscience lead you out of the Catholic Church which is teaching error? Especially since it is never just one issue they believe the Church is wrong upon in the first place.

Since no specific priests are mentioned that have previously attempted such ceremonies or plan to do them in the future we can’t really tell if this is true. Unfortunately it is all too easy to believe considering that one Catholic parish in San Francisco had promised to do so on their site until they were forced to take it down. No doubt there are priests who would have no problem with this, but would not publicly do so. If any priests attempt to marry same-sex couples in private then this would be pretty sad and rather cowardly. If your really think that this is God’s will then you should be willing to do what is right despite consequences. It is not exactly like you would be martyred for doing so. If they are willing to bless these phony marriages shouldn’t they have the strength of their convictions to attempt same-sex marriages.

Update: In a story on two gay Anglican priests who got married.

Mr Dudley opened the service by saying: “Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God to join these men in a holy covenant of love and fidelity. Such a covenant shows us the mystery of the union between God and God’s people and between Christ and the Church.”

Diogenes asks

So, in this “mystery,” does the man represent Christ while the man takes the place of the Church — or is it the other way around?

There has been a lot of chatter of Fr. Andrew Greeley’s column yesterday Fall election hinges on race.

In fact, only a little more than half of the Democratic voters chose the senator from Illinois as their candidate. Were the other voters racist? Influenced by racism? Inclined to racism, which they hide even from themselves? Surely all of these factors were at work, but it is virtually impossible with the current research technology to sort them out. Moreover, is the voter a bigot who says — to himself or others — “He’s too young for it,” “I don’t know anything about him,” “He’s an elitist,” “He’s just a lot of fancy talk,” “The country isn’t ready for a man like that,” “He’s weak in his support of Israel,” “He’s Muslim, possibly the anti-Christ!” Are these hints of lurking prejudice? Are the voters of regular members of the Democratic coalition — Hispanics and union members — against Obama partly because of racism?

Racism is of course still with us, but blessedly reduced. No doubt there were some within the Democratic Party that voted against him on race alone, though I don’t think it is a very large segment. Though articles like this never mention the large numbers of blacks that voted for Barack Obama. Surely some did so based on the color of his skin and it seems to me when you take that into consideration when you vote that is in fact a form of racism. Though you also had class warfare in terms of gender where some women voted for Sen. Hillary for the simple fact that she was the same gender as them. Look at the fallout when Oprah endorsed Barack and many women were upset that she had done so.

How many of the male readers of this column who are habitues of bars, locker rooms, commuter train bull sessions, pool rooms and men’s clubs have not heard the indigenous racial slurs of such environments applied to Obama?

I do wonder who Fr. Greeley hangs out with. I have to really go back in time about twenty years to remember the last time I heard someone make a racial slur within my hearing. The guy making the slur was a class A idiot who actually believed Robin Trower did the music for Jimi Hendrix. Everyone in the shop I was working in at the time would immediately go on the offensive on this guy when he said something racist or sexist. I suspect that Fr. Greeley just projects this as happening as frequently as he thinks.

And surely some of the explicit chatter during the campaign was racist, especially the obsession with the various clergy who mounted the pulpit of his church. By what stretch of sick logic could the candidate be responsible for what his clergy said and did?

So by this logic I guess you could attend one of the racist white supremacist churches and not be accountable for the rampant racism that was taught. Plus Rev. Wright was not just some clergy in a Church he attended, he was a personal friend also involved in his campaign and someone Obama had written was a great influence and advisory. He book “Audacity of Hope” comes from one of this sermons.

Certainly there are solid political and personal reasons that some Americans might have had for voting against the senator that would not be in principle racist. He is one of the most “liberal” members of Congress. He stole the election from a woman who was entitled to it. He is one of the “boys” beating up on the female candidate. He is a not a patriot dedicated to final victory in Iraq. He is weak on national security. He lacks experience. He supports abortion. Yet behind these arguments, might racism lurk?

Certainly it might lurk, but predominantly you are going to find people who oppose Obama because of the positions he holds and at least Fr. Greeley even mentioned that abortion might be one of those reasons. Original sin is still with us and the evidence for concupiscence is always increasing. We are nowhere close to judging people by the “content of their character” and can come up with vapid reasons to support someone who fails on these counts. Now we all know that if Sen. Obama fails the media will not see it as being the fault of his radicalism, but only in terms of race. That somehow if I oppose someone who is the most extreme supporter of abortion running for president ever, someone who supports cloning, ESCR, euthanasia, homosexual marriage – all intrinsic evils – that it makes me a racist. Gee I thought it made me a Catholic or someone who takes the natural law seriously. I guess the fact that I have voted for Amb. Alan Keyes multiple times just makes me a confused racist.

The point is that racism permeates American society and hides itself under many different disguises. The nomination of an African-American candidate was a near-miracle. Only the innocent and the naive think that the November election will not be about race.

I would like to know how racism permeates the society when he says there is no “current research technology to sort them out.” How does he know this? Or is it just calumny based on what he wants to believe? I guess for Fr. Greely you can make uncharitable judgments on what you think motivates most people. But then again Fr. Greeley supports a candidate that supports intrinsic evils that will continue the culture of death, so his judgment is questionable in the first place.

For those who have been following Canada’s human rights tribunals and their decisions against Christians who express moral opposition to homosexual activism and same-sex marriage, the name Stephen Boissoin should be familiar to you. I won’t go into the whole history of his case, however, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal recently ordered him to stop talking about homosexuality from the perspective of his evangelical Christian faith. Moreover, the government tribunal ordered him to apologize for his previous expressions on this topic as a Christian, and has prohibited him from criticizing the government process to which he had been subjected.

Admittedly, given the stridency of his letter that brought about the original complaint, as well as the way he was characterized in the mainstream media, I expected a sort of Fred Phelps light.

This impression was wrong.

I realized how wrong it was within seconds of speaking to him last week for the first time.

Stephen struck me as anything but hateful. He came across as gentle, albeit fervent like most evangelicals (although he doesn’t admit the label, calling himself a simple Bible Christian). Moreover, he expressed genuinely felt concern for the emotional, spiritual and physical welfare of those who practice the homosexual lifestyle. I think part of the problem was the fact that the theological vocabulary between Catholics and Protestants has evolved differently since the Reformation. So quite often things that are understood or interpreted one way by one, are misinterpreted another way by the other.

However, there is one thing Catholics and evangelicals share besides their faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. And that is a 100 percent conviction rate before Canada’s human rights tribunals on Section 13.1 cases. The legal persecution makes no distinction among Christians.

Pete Vere has put up four videos of his half-hour interview with Stephen Boissoin at Catholic Light.

A Shepherd’s Voice blog posts that Catholic Charities will host its annual Red House Fundraiser on June 3, 2008 with the following guests..

This year’s event is especially interesting because of its proximity to the recent California Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex "marriage." Honorary Committee Members for this year’s event (and their reactions to the court’s decision) include:

• Mayor Gavin Newsom: "What a day in San Francisco! What a day for equality! Who among us was prepared for this extraordinary moment and extraordinary time," said Newsom, who cut short a trip to Washington, D.C. to return home Wednesday night to await the court’s ruling. "I can’t tell you how proud I am to be a San Franciscan….It’s an affirmation of the gay and lesbian community and an extraordinary day for all of us as Americans," Newsom told the Bay Area Reporter in a Thursday phone call.-Bay Area Reporter; May 15, 2008

• Supervisor Bevan Dufty: "I think it is a win for justice and a win for California and a win for the future." -Bay Area Reporter; May 15, 2008.

• Rebecca Rolfe, Executive Director, San Francisco LGBT Center: "This is the best day of my professional life." -San Francisco Bay Times; May 22, 2008.

Another Honorary Committee Member is, once again, transvestite entertainer "Donna Sachet," who is a Board Member of the Equality California Institute. "Equality California" was one of those represented in the case before the Supreme Court.

Also posted is the contrast of the statements of the Honorary Committee members with the position of the Catholic Church, as enunciated by Archbishop George Niederauer (here), Bishop Allen Vigneron (here), and the Vatican (here).

Rome, May. 28, 2008 (CWNews.com) – The Holy See’s permanent observer to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Msgr. Renato Volante, has denounced the use of agricultural products for fuel.

Speaking on Vatican Radio, Msgr. Volante said: "It is not ethically just to use food for purposes other than human consumption, when there are people who suffer from hunger.”

The Vatican representative’s statement comes just ahead of an FAO conference on the Food Crisis, to be held in Rome next week.

Hey doesn’t he know that in US politics that politicians must appease corn producing states. Billions of dollars in ethanol subsidies are needed for early primary states and ones that can go either way in an election. People starving is just an unintended consequence. Kind of like banning DDT and letting millions die of malaria.

The Student Union at Queensland University have shown themselves to be opposed to differing opinion and free speech like many other secular universities around the world.The school’s Newman Society has been censored and threatened with disaffiliation from the student union because union leaders believed the group’s pro-woman and pro-pregnancy campaign took a stand against abortion.

The poster and leaflets, displayed on a booth outside the student cafe, did not mention abortion but featured a photograph of an eight week old child in the womb, and offered compassion and support for young women who might find themselves facing the difficult challenge of an unplanned pregnancy.

Elise Nally, third-year applied science student and Newman Society secretary, said in a report by The Australian that the union’s action was totalitarian and against free speech.

I’d like to know what laws we’ve broken, Nally said. The union is acting like a dictator.

Joshua Young, president of the student union, gave this explanation for the union’s actions against Catholics on campus: I know the Newman Society thinks the union is being heavy handed, but the student union voted in 1993 for free, safe abortion on demand so all women have a genuine choice when faced with unwanted pregnancy.

From a student body of 30,000, a total of approximately 3,500 voted in the 1993 referendum, with about 1900 in favor of abortion rights, 1400 against, and 200 abstaining.

When asked if the vote precludes other views being advocated in campus debate, Young said, It does.

Once again choice does not mean choice but an overwhelming prejudice for abortion That you can’t even advertise for women to have a child and that you will help them if they do. Like I have said before when pro-choicers started to open up pregnancy centers to give assistance to women who find themselves in a difficult situation and need help, I will start to agree that choice isn’t just a rhetorical device.

It is always interesting to see the media news cycle when it comes to Vatican reporting. The latest story on the Vatican’s head astronomer about the possibility of aliens in God’s creation. For them this fits their perfect template because they think it is such an amazing admission and one that is suppose to undermine faith in Jesus from their point of view. They also don’t care that this is a repeat story and forget that this is not exactly a new topic.

They don’t understand that the great thing about being Catholic is how much freedom we have. We are totally free to speculate on the existence of extraterrestrials other than Angels and the possibility of life on other planets. We can also be greatly skeptical about this too. Either way we are totally free to do so. When I was an atheist I was really not free to believe that there was no other intelligent life in the universe. To accept such an hypothesis would have forced me to think about our uniqueness. In a random universe where life is just the result of pure chance it is dogmatic for an atheist to believe that in a universe of billions and billions of worlds that life would have to develop on worlds other than ours. This is an area where atheists just have faith that alien life must exist and it is no surprise that Muldur’s poster in the X-Files contains a sort of creed ‘I want to Believe’ Mark Shea said the other day "… Atheism Tends to be an Interlude between Exhaling Biblical Belief and Inhaling Something Else." A supernatural vacuum must be filled by something.

As an atheist I was also not free to disbelieve in evolution and Darwinism specifically. As a Catholic I am free to do so or not to do so based on where the evidence leads me.

As an atheist I was not free to believe in Marian apparitions. As a Catholic I am totally free to believe or disbelieve them based again on where the evidence leads me.

As a Catholic even areas of theology that are dogmatic I enjoy a greater freedom since truth is one of the more freeing things they are. Being free from errors in these areas gives me the freedom to believe and do as I ought. The truth is everybody is dogmatic on something and I had plenty of my own dogmas as an atheist. As G.K. Chesterton said "In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don’t know it"

Father Terry Rassmussen, pastor of St. Joseph in New Hope, finished reading, closed the Book of the Gospels, and stepped away from the ambo. From the congregation, Ginny Untiedt stepped forward.

Clad in a white robe, Untiedt bowed as Father Rassmussen laid his hands on her head and blessed her. She looked up, walked to the ambo and began preaching for the last time.

As many as 29 parishes in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis have used lay preachers at Mass during the past 25 years. In January, however, Archbishop Harry Flynn instructed pastors to discontinue the practice. He gave his retirement date – May 2 – as the time by which parishes should develop "a pastoral plan" to end lay preaching at Mass.

In his January letter to pastors, Archbishop Flynn referenced the 2004 Vatican instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," which called eucharistic lay preaching – a non-ordained person reflecting on the Gospel reading at the place in Mass usually reserved for a homily by a priest or deacon – a liturgical abuse.

…Many lay preachers have expressed "enormous grief and anger" over the directive to stop the practice, said Patricia Hughes Baumer, who co-founded the lay preaching training organization Partners in Preaching with her husband, Fred, in 1997.

Proponents of lay preaching argue that canon law allows the practice and that both the congregation and pastors benefit from hearing Gospel reflections from diverse voices.

Well I guess it is about time. I am not sure exactly why a "pastoral plan" was needed since a liturgical abuse shouldn’t be phased out, but eliminated. What exactly would a plan require other than that the priest or deacon deliver the homilies? Though I guess it can be a prudential decision because of the negative reaction. I just don’t understand how this practice could ever have been allowed in the first place and over such a long period of time.

Especially since it was not Redemptionis Sacramentum that changed this. This instruction only reiterated that this was indeed a liturgical abuse. The 1983 code of Canon Law specifically says:

Canon 767

+1. Among the forms of preaching the homily is preeminent; it is apart of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or to a deacon;

And no doubt the previous Code of Canon Law never allowed this practice either.

So whoever these unnamed proponents of lay preaching are that appeal to Canon Law they are not quite telling the truth.

The truth is that lay preaching is not prohibited, after all we are all part of the great commission to go out into the whole world and to preach the good news. It is just that lay people can’t do it during Mass. So on Sunday or any other time you go to Mass you can preach the Gospel pretty much 23/7. The great apologist Frank Sheed stood up on his soapbox in Hyde Park and preached up a storm. People gifted with preaching the faith can certainly find opportunities and forums to do so. Just because you can’t do it during the Mass doesn’t mean that you can’t preach the Gospel. This is just part of the same false idea I have talked about before that if you are not doing some activity directly in a Church or as part of the diocese/parish that it somehow doesn’t count.

Though I would suspect that many of these lay homilists were not quite faithful to the Church. If you just ignore Canon Law and the instructions of the Church more than likely that you will get homilies that ignore what the Church teaches for the sake of "diverse views."