Punditry

With all of the blocking being done to
Summorum Pontificum being done by certain bishops we could only wish they could find this same zeal for other projects. What if these bishops were as effective in blocking the will of the Holy Father and in reality also the previous Holy Father in regards to the TLM as they were to closing down abortion clinics in their diocese?

What if they showed the same concern towards knowing the rubrics of the TLM as they did to the ordinary rite? Is it any wonder some take with more than a grain of salt these new found worries that priests more than adequately know the Mass and to perform it correctly. Now certainly the bishop has a clear role in ensuring his priests have the proper training and that they conform to liturgical regulations, but why exactly is it that there seems to be a rigorist view of this towards the TLM and a Lassie Faire attitude towards the ordinary form of the Mass. Strangely I had the odd idea that the same view should be taken towards all forms of liturgy in the diocese, but maybe that’s just me.

With the recent comment by Mike Huckabee on asking whether Mormon’s believe that Satan is Jesus’ brother, Andrew Sullivan tries to explain how odd Catholic teachings are anyway.

As a Catholic, I am obliged to believe that the mother of Jesus was whooshed physically into the sky rather than dying.

Once again Mr. Sullivan shows his ignorance about the faith. The dogma of the Assumption is relates to the bodily Assumption into heaven of Mary. There has been no statement by the Magisterium as to whether Mary was alive when she was assumed or whether she died first. Eastern Catholic/Orthodox theology generally sides on her having died first and celebrate the Dormition (falling asleep) of Mary. Of course Mr. Sullivan is being facetious with the whole "whooshed physically into the sky" part.

Though I bet most faithful Catholic wouldn’t be embarrassed to have someone bring up the Assumption in contrast to the Satan is Jesus’ brother teaching in Mormonism.

Via anti-contraception news.

Much like Al Gore’s claim that he invented the internet, Hillary is taking credit for the reduction in teen pregnancy rates
between 1995 and 2005.

"To address this important issue, my husband issued a call to action in 1995 to America’s parents and leaders to join together to cut America’s teen pregnancy rate by one-third over a decade. In order to help achieve this ambitious goal, I helped launch the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, and we successfully achieved a one-third reduction by 2005"

Never mind that during this period, abstinence among teens was on the rise and state restrictions on abortions were given new strength by the Supreme Court’s 1992 *Planned Parenthood vs. Casey* decision. For example, a study by professor Michael New of the University of Alabama found that pro-life legislation, and not the influence of Bill or Hillary Clinton, resulted in significant reductions on the abortion rate among
minors.

And never mind that the partial birth abortion ban, which Hillary opposed and voted against, may have significantly changed public perception on abortion and its acceptability.

Yes, folks, Hillary Clinton wants us to believe that increased abstinence and pro-life legislation did not have an impact on teen pregnancy and abortion rates. And of course, she blames the recent rise in teen birth
rates on the Bush administration:

"But the report released today indicates that under President Bush’s leadership, we may be falling off track"

So let’s get this straight – Hillary caused teen pregnancy rates to drop by 1/3 over the span of a decade, George Bush is responsible for the recent rise in teen birth rates, Bill Clinton did not have sex with "that woman",
and Al Gore invented the internet. Given these facts, how could anybody doubt that putting Hillary in the Oval office will once and for all end teen pregnancy?

(CNSNews.com) – In a Dec. 1 op-ed in the Washington Post, First Lady Laura Bush said Americans need to “practice safe sex,” use condoms “every time,” and get tested for HIV/AIDS. Her spokeswoman repeated the message to Cybercast News Service this week. However, it is a message that is contrary to the Bush administration’s policy position on abstinence education as the best way to fight HIV/AIDS.

In her commentary, “Let’s Unite Against HIV-AIDS,”

Mrs. Bush wrote that Americans “should know our HIV status” and provided the Web site to find “the testing center closest to you.” She went on to write: “Practice Safe Sex. Let’s take a cue from our African counterparts and follow the ABC method of prevention: Abstinence, Be Faithful and the Correct and Consistent Use of Condoms. That means not just occasionally, but every time.”

To the First Lady’s message just say no. Though I would ask of her if you are abstinent or faithful why would you need to wear a condom every time? But I guess it is perfectly consistent within Church teaching for abstinent people to wear condoms. Heck anybody can wear a condom if they want – just not while having sex.

Now if I was going to write parody names for workshops I might create ones such as:

• Getting Beyond Dominating Hierarchy: Recovering an Authentic Vision of Teaching Authority in the Church …
• Getting Beyond the Church as an ‘Unequal Society’: Uncovering Vatican II’s Vision of the Church …
• Getting Beyond ‘Pay, Pray and Obey’: Reflections on the Vocation of the Laity.

Unfortunately those are real workshops that will be held in the Diocese of Rochester – the diocese that even makes Cardinal Mahony and his diocese look orthodox by comparison.

These workshops will be held by Dr. Richard R. Gaillardetz. The Bishop’s marriage site recommended one of his books last month. Though the book review has now been pulled. Since the USCCB also recently yanked the Golden Compass review I think it can be explained by "Nobody expects the Vanish Inquisition."

Rich Leonardi who posted on this originally also has a copy of the invitation for this workshop at his blog.

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks.

This is from an article from The Daily Mail titled "The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom." More proof that you should never just rely on the media whether it is on the left or the right. The author of the article came up with his interpretation based on this piece from the Pope’s message.

It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances.

The author Simon Caldwell makes the Pope say much more then he actually said. Saying that the Pope was calling this scare-mongering is a reach , though it is obvious that the Pope sees the current discussion on the environment to be partially driven by ideological pressure and perhaps jumping the gun on the science. While I agree with Simon Caldwell about their being prophets of doom in the debate on “climate change”, I think it is dishonest to put those words in the Pope’s mouth.

The Holy Fathers message for the World Day of Peace called The Human Family, a Community of Peace is a good read just as everything he writes is. His message starts off and is rooted in the family.

The natural family, as an intimate communion of life and love, based on marriage between a man and a woman, constitutes “the primary place of ‘humanization’ for the person and society”, and a “cradle of life and love”. The family is therefore rightly defined as the first natural society, “a divine institution that stands at the foundation of life of the human person as the prototype of every social order”

The message proceeds from the family to the human community where he addresses the environment. He then goes on to talk about economy in the context of human community and moral values and ends with overcoming conflict in the world and moving towards disarmament.

Dawn Eden has found more Planned Parenthood posters from around the world.

Today the U.S. bishops withdrew the review of the film The Golden Compass, which opened in theaters in the United States Dec. 7. The review was written by Harry Forbes and John Mulderig, the director and staff reviewer respectively of the Office for Film and Broadcasting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The review was released and posted on the CNS Web site Nov. 29. The USCCB gave no reason for withdrawing the review.

Now they just need to redraw the Office for Film and Broadcasting itself.

In reference to my Imagine post about an atheist group’s "Imagine No Religion" display with a picture of the Twin Towers John Gibson sent me this graphic he created.

a

Now as to whether Hitler was an atheist I would consider debatable. The case can be certain made for his being influenced by occult racist theories developed by Theosophy and mixed with German Paganism.

But the others pictured were all avowed atheists. Atheist apologists like to bring up the fact that Stalin once went to seminary as if this set the stage for the massacres, purges, and famines and killing enough people to make Hitler look tame by contrast. Stalin though went to seminary not because he felt he had a priestly vocation, but because of the lack of locally available university education.

The question I would have for atheists is why should Stalin have changed any aspect of his life? He lived to be a 74 in a life of luxury where he was able to dictate to others to give him whatever he wanted. If this life is all there is then why not take everything by force if you are able? A lot of atheist morality is tied to the idea that you accept a framework of socially developed morality to help you get along in life. That these socially developed moralities are culturally dependent and thus can change. That morality is totally subjective. So why should Stalin have followed these subjective moralities when he became top dog despite them. He didn’t "go along to get along" which is what culturally developed morality is all about. From Stalin’s subjective view he saw that what he did worked and in a material only world there are only material pleasures which he had a plenty.

I had also found it interesting that the atheist group wanted to tie it’s message to 9/11. At first glance you might think this makes a kind of sense since you would think that suicide bombers are going to be motivated by religious thought to be willing to die for a cause. Though the truth is that atheists are also quite willing to kill themselves in suicide attacks. Just look at the cases of the Columbine killers, the shooter responsible for the Virginia Tech massacre, and pretty much everybody behind school shootings. Instead of dying for bad theology these killers seemed mostly to be willing to die for publicity.

But when you believe there is really no law outside yourself besides what you willingly shackle yourself with to go through life it is not surprising that this can lead to a view where human life is cheapened. Morality at this level is a consequence management view of morality. It is not about absolute rights or wrongs, but if I do this am I willing to accept probable consequences for a given action. During my conversion I started to realize that my own high moral view was built on a foundation of straw and could not backed up by a materialistic world view. I took a lot for granted that was actually borrowed from religious thought such as the idea of personhood and absolutes when it came to morality.

Atheists display a picture of the Twin Towers on a sign that say "Imagine no Religion"

VERNON – The sturdy white sign in Rockville’s Central Park asking passers-by to "Imagine No Religion" has generated some calls, a few of them angry, to town hall. There have also been calls to local clergymen and discussion in businesses along Rockville’s West Main Street.

The sign — some call it a billboard — was erected on Dec. 1 by the Connecticut Valley Atheists, and as of Thursday was the only display erected in the town’s center to mark the holiday season, aside from a Christmas tree just across from the town hall and some garland and white lights wrapped around light poles.

Yes why can’t religious people act more like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, and the other enlightened atheist leaders of the last century. How thankful we are for the start of the French Enlightenment which was called the Reign of Terror for some odd reason.

I think their sign would be better with the caption "Imagine no bad theology" since that is mostly what the problem is for Jihadists in the first place.