Seeing the headlines today:

Pope Assails ‘Disobedience’ Among Priests‎ New York Times
Pope Denounces Priests Who Question Catholic Teachings On Celibacy …‎ Huffington Post
Pope slams reformists’ calls to ordain women‎ Kansas City Star

So what he actually said:

Pope Benedict XVI Chrism Mass

Here is the Homily in full, from Vatican Radio:

“Dear Brothers and Sisters,

At this Holy Mass our thoughts go back to that moment when, through prayer and the laying on of hands, the bishop made us sharers in the priesthood of Jesus Christ, so that we might be “consecrated in truth” (Jn 17:19), as Jesus besought the Father for us in his high-priestly prayer. He himself is the truth.

He has consecrated us, that is to say, handed us over to God for ever, so that we can offer men and women a service that comes from God and leads to him. But does our consecration extend to the daily reality of our lives – do we operate as men of God in fellowship with Jesus Christ? This question places the Lord before us and us before him. “Are you resolved to be more united with the Lord Jesus and more closely conformed to him, denying yourselves and confirming those promises about sacred duties towards Christ’s Church which, prompted by love of him, you willingly and joyfully pledged on the day of your priestly ordination?”

After this homily, I shall be addressing that question to each of you here and to myself as well. Two things, above all, are asked of us: there is a need for an interior bond, a configuration to Christ, and at the same time there has to be a transcending of ourselves, a renunciation of what is simply our own, of the much-vaunted self-fulfilment.

We need, I need, not to claim my life as my own, but to place it at the disposal of another – of Christ. I should be asking not what I stand to gain, but what I can give for him and so for others. Or to put it more specifically, this configuration to Christ, who came not to be served but to serve, who does not take, but rather gives – what form does it take in the often dramatic situation of the Church today?

Recently a group of priests from a European country issued a summons to disobedience, and at the same time gave concrete examples of the forms this disobedience might take, even to the point of disregarding definitive decisions of the Church’s Magisterium, such as the question of women’s ordination, for which Blessed Pope John Paul II stated irrevocably that the Church has received no authority from the Lord.

Is disobedience a path of renewal for the Church? We would like to believe that the authors of this summons are motivated by concern for the Church, that they are convinced that the slow pace of institutions has to be overcome by drastic measures, in order to open up new paths and to bring the Church up to date. But is disobedience really a way to do this? Do we sense here anything of that configuration to Christ which is the precondition for true renewal, or do we merely sense a desperate push to do something to change the Church in accordance with one’s own preferences and ideas?

But let us not oversimplify matters. Surely Christ himself corrected human traditions which threatened to stifle the word and the will of God? Indeed he did, so as to rekindle obedience to the true will of God, to his ever enduring word. His concern was for true obedience, as opposed to human caprice. Nor must we forget: he was the Son, possessed of singular authority and responsibility to reveal the authentic will of God, so as to open up the path for God’s word to the world of the nations. And finally: he lived out his task with obedience and humility all the way to the Cross, and so gave credibility to his mission. Not my will, but thine be done: these words reveal to us the Son, in his humility and his divinity, and they show us the true path.

Let us ask again: do not such reflections serve simply to defend inertia, the fossilization of traditions? No. Anyone who considers the history of the post-conciliar era can recognize the process of true renewal, which often took unexpected forms in living movements and made almost tangible the inexhaustible vitality of holy Church, the presence and effectiveness of the Holy Spirit. And if we look at the people from whom these fresh currents of life burst forth and continue to burst forth, then we see that this new fruitfulness requires being filled with the joy of faith, the radicalism of obedience, the dynamic of hope and the power of love.

Dear friends, it is clear that configuration to Christ is the precondition and the basis for all renewal. But perhaps at times the figure of Jesus Christ seems too lofty and too great for us to dare to measure ourselves by him. The Lord knows this. So he has provided “translations” on a scale that is more accessible and closer to us. For this same reason, Saint Paul did not hesitate to say to his communities: Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

For his disciples, he was a “translation” of Christ’s manner of life that they could see and identify with. Ever since Paul’s time, history has furnished a constant flow of other such “translations” of Jesus’ way into historical figures. We priests can call to mind a great throng of holy priests who have gone before us and shown us the way: from Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch, from the great pastors Ambrose, Augustine and Gregory the Great, through to Ignatius of Loyola, Charles Borromeo, John Mary Vianney and the priest-martyrs of the 20th century, and finally Pope John Paul II, who gave us an example, through his activity and his suffering, of configuration to Christ as “gift and mystery”. The saints show us how renewal works and how we can place ourselves at its service. And they help us realize that God is not concerned so much with great numbers and with outward successes, but achieves his victories under the humble sign of the mustard seed.

Dear friends, I would like briefly to touch on two more key phrases from the renewal of ordination promises, which should cause us to reflect at this time in the Church’s life and in our own lives. Firstly, the reminder that – as Saint Paul put it – we are “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor 4:1) and we are charged with the ministry of teaching (munus docendi), which forms a part of this stewardship of God’s mysteries, through which he shows us his face and his heart, in order to give us himself.

At the meeting of Cardinals on the occasion of the recent Consistory, several of the pastors of the Church spoke, from experience, of the growing religious illiteracy found in the midst of our sophisticated society. The foundations of faith, which at one time every child knew, are now known less and less. But if we are to live and love our faith, if we are to love God and to hear him aright, we need to know what God has said to us – our minds and hearts must be touched by his word.

The Year of Faith, commemorating the opening of the Second Vatican Council fifty years ago, should provide us with an occasion to proclaim the message of faith with new enthusiasm and new joy. We find it of course first and foremost in sacred Scripture, which we can never read and ponder enough. Yet at the same time we all experience the need for help in accurately expounding it in the present day, if it is truly to touch our hearts. This help we find first of all in the words of the teaching Church: the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are essential tools which serve as an authentic guide to what the Church believes on the basis of God’s word. And of course this also includes the whole wealth of documents given to us by Pope John Paul II, still far from being fully explored.

All our preaching must measure itself against the saying of Jesus Christ: “My teaching is not mine” (Jn 7:16). We preach not private theories and opinions, but the faith of the Church, whose servants we are. Naturally this should not be taken to mean that I am not completely supportive of this teaching, or solidly anchored in it. In this regard I am always reminded of the words of Saint Augustine: what is so much mine as myself? And what is so little mine as myself? I do not own myself, and I become myself by the very fact that I transcend myself, and thereby become a part of Christ, a part of his body the Church. If we do not preach ourselves, and if we are inwardly so completely one with him who called us to be his ambassadors, that we are shaped by faith and live it, then our preaching will be credible. I do not seek to win people for myself, but I give myself. The Curé of Ars was no scholar, no intellectual, we know that. But his preaching touched people’s hearts because his own heart had been touched.

The last keyword that I should like to consider is “zeal for souls”: animarum zelus. It is an old-fashioned expression, not much used these days. In some circles, the word “soul” is virtually banned because – ostensibly – it expresses a body-soul dualism that wrongly compartmentalizes the human being.

Of course the human person is a unity, destined for eternity as body and soul. And yet that cannot mean that we no longer have a soul, a constituent principle guaranteeing our unity in this life and beyond earthly death. And as priests, of course, we are concerned for the whole person, including his or her physical needs – we care for the hungry, the sick, the homeless. And yet we are concerned not only with the body, but also with the needs of the soul: with those who suffer from the violation of their rights or from destroyed love, with those unable to perceive the truth, those who suffer for lack of truth and love. We are concerned with the salvation of men and women in body and soul.

And as priests of Jesus Christ we carry out our task with enthusiasm.No one should ever have the impression that we work conscientiously when on duty, but before and after hours we belong only to ourselves. A priest never belongs to himself. People must sense our zeal, through which we bear credible witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Let us ask the Lord to fill us with joy in his message, so that we may serve his truth and his love with joyful zeal. Amen.

The Pope is just so awesome. He can talk on the issue of disobedience and ask questions like “Is disobedience a path of renewal for the Church?” and make distinctions about true reform. We hear so often of dialogue and the Pope truly uses his gifts in this way not to simply condemn, but put forth the truth and ask questions along the way.  Not  much in the way of “slam”ing or “assailing” as the headlines would claim.

Pope Benedict XVI with Fidel Castro

When the Pope arrived in Cuba in part he said:

We can no longer continue in the same cultural and moral direction which has caused the painful situation that many suffer. On the other hand, real progress calls for an ethics which focuses on the human person and takes account of the most profound human needs, especially man’s spiritual and religious dimension. In the hearts and minds of many, the way is thus opening to an ever greater certainty that the rebirth of society demands upright men and women of firm moral convictions, with noble and strong values who will not be manipulated by dubious interests and who are respectful of the unchanging and transcendent nature of the human person.

Though meanwhile:

So, Cuban state security has sent pro-democracy activists a text message: “As soon as the Pope leaves, we are going to disappear you all.” (“Tan pronto como se vaya el #PapaCuba los vamos a desaparecer a todos ustedes.”) [Source]

I remember reading ahead of time about the ‘Reason Rally’ that was held on March 24th in Washington, D.C.  It was not something that much interested me in that the free assembly of atheists is something I would support.  The freedom of religion really includes the freedom of non-religion.  Though even when I was an atheist the rally is not something that would have much interested me as far as wanting to attend other then well-wishing the assemblage as a sign of right-thinking.

I was thinking tangentially on a related subject on how atheism has it’s own form of clericalism. The high priests of atheism are often scientists such as Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Stephen Hawkins, along with the late Carl Sagan and  Stephen Gould.  Though while not all the so-called new atheists are scientists, scientists are given an elevated level of respect.  Speaking for myself at one time I would not have desired a Philosopher-King, but a Scientist-King so that we could all live under a rule of reason.  That the philosophy of scientism permeates these high priests of atheists is no surprise since when the only tool you have in your toolbox is science you hit everything with it.  They ignore the limits of science and try to make every question a “how” which at the same time is suppose to explain the “why.”   That explaining chemical and electrical actions in our brains is suppose to explains everything about the brain.

As Blessed John Paul II wrote in “Fides Et Ratio”:

88. Another threat to be reckoned with is scientism. This is the philosophical notion which refuses to admit the validity of forms of knowledge other than those of the positive sciences; and it relegates religious, theological, ethical and aesthetic knowledge to the realm of mere fantasy.

This is why a “Reason Rally” starts off crippled and returning to Fides Et Ratio again.

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

There has been some coverage on what Richard Dawkins said at the rally:

WASHINGTON D.C., March 27 (CNA) .- At the March 24 ‘Reason Rally’ in Washington, D.C., an estimated 20,000 atheists and agnostics heard author and activist Richard Dawkins encourage mockery of Catholic beliefs and those of other religions.

‘Don’t fall for the convention that we’re all ‘too polite’ to talk about religion,’ Dawkins said, before urging rally attendees to ridicule Catholics’ faith in the Eucharist.

‘Religion makes specific claims about the universe which need to be substantiated, and need to be challenged ‘ and if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt,’ he told the cheering crowd on the National Mall.

‘For example, if they say they’re Catholic: Do you really believe, that when a priest blesses a wafer, it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood?’

If the answer is yes, Dawkins suggested atheists should show contempt for believers instead of ignoring the issue or feigning respect.

‘Mock them,’ he told the crowd. ‘Ridicule them! In public!’

Once again Dawkins gives the Church a back-handed compliment. Like most atheists the foil is almost always Christianity and often specifically Catholicism. Also interesting the focus on the Eucharist and how it is something that should be mocked. Well Jesus was mocked and scourged before so there is nothing new under the sun here. Though I can’t really blame atheists in how the doctrine of the Eucharist is so outrageous. Really it is outrageous in that is is shocking, bold, and startling. We should all be so startled out of any bland reception of the Eucharist. The mocking of the Eucharist has certainly been a focus as the case of the desecration of the Eucharist by P.Z. Myers shows. He certainly followed Dawkins template of “ridicule and contempt.”

So Dawkins has an atheist paraphrase for the quote falsely attributed to St. Francis.

“Preach Darwinism at all times and if necessary use ridicule and contempt.”

[Source]

“Marriage equality” has become a buzz-phrase in the advocacy of same-sex marriage in the latest use of relativism to equate what can’t be equated. Equality as a word has been repeatedly used in various advocacies as if it was an argument that can’t be refuted. I mean who can be against equality? Equality is seen as a basic form of justice as any kind of unfairness we naturally respond to. The problem is you just can’t put anything on either side of the equals sign and make the resulting equation true.

Really though the problem with same-sex marriage is with equality itself – it is too equal in fact. The fundamental reality of marriage is not based on equality but that that men and women have complementary natures. It is no coincidence that the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage followed the feminist advocacy of what comes down to making men and women equal via contraception and abortion. Once you render one of the ends of sex null than same-sex sexual activity seems to be as equal as contraceptive opposite-sex activity.

The equality of men and women is based on their personhood. “God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him, male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). God command to “be fertile and multiply” (Gen 1.28) can only be met because of the complementarity of men and women. Same-sex marriage or same-sex relationships can never be fecund because men and men or women and women are too equal both physically and psychologically.

228. Connected with de facto unions is the particular problem concerning demands for the legal recognition of unions between homosexual persons, which is increasingly the topic of public debate. Only an anthropology corresponding to the full truth of the human person can give an appropriate response to this problem with its different aspects on both the societal and ecclesial levels[503]. The light of such anthropology reveals “how incongruous is the demand to accord ‘marital’ status to unions between persons of the same sex. It is opposed, first of all, by the objective impossibility of making the partnership fruitful through the transmission of life according to the plan inscribed by God in the very structure of the human being. Another obstacle is the absence of the conditions for that interpersonal complementarity between male and female willed by the Creator at both the physical-biological and the eminently psychological levels. It is only in the union of two sexually different persons that the individual can achieve perfection in a synthesis of unity and mutual psychophysical completion”[504].

Homosexual persons are to be fully respected in their human dignity [505] and encouraged to follow God’s plan with particular attention in the exercise of chastity[506]. This duty calling for respect does not justify the legitimization of behaviour that is not consistent with moral law, even less does it justify the recognition of a right to marriage between persons of the same sex and its being considered equivalent to the family[507].

“If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties”[508]. (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church)