The Rev. Michael Pfleger said Tuesday in a meeting with parishioners that if he is not reinstated as pastor of St. Sabina Catholic Church by this weekend, he will begin to preach at other churches.

In his first in-depth public remarks about his suspension by Cardinal Francis George, Pfleger told a group of about 150 people that he has received numerous offers to preach from churches throughout the city and the country and needs to get back to preaching.

He did not specify at what churches he might speak or their denominations.

Still, Pfleger insisted that the only way he will leave St. Sabina is if he is thrown out or if he believes God wants him to go.

“This has been very painful,” Pfleger said, choking back tears.

Jesus told the Apostles “He who hears you hears me.” If Fr. Pfleger wants to know God’s will for him he only has to follow his bishop. The road to sanctity follows the road of obedience to your bishop and obedience does not mean you follow only what prudential decisions you agree with. The wide path is the way of ego of making yourself preeminent over proper authority. A parish priest who is disobedient to his bishop is disobedient to God.

But for Fr. Pfleger and his Me-gisterium it is “He who hears me is better off” and his preaching must go on. I guess preaching on obedience will not be one of the topics covered.

So how long before he becomes an Episcopalian? Though I pray he repents and becomes submissive to his bishop and to Christ.

Pfleger spent about 90 minutes talking to the group and answering questions about his suspension and the future of the church.

He insisted that George never ordered him to become president of nearby Leo High School. Pfleger also said he did not disobey the cardinal by saying he was not qualified for such an assignment.

Pfleger added that the media received the letter from George suspending him before he did and that he never threatened to leave the Catholic Church if he were removed.

In fact, Pfleger told radio show hosts Tavis Smiley and Cornel West in April that he would look outside the Catholic Church if offered no other choice but to work at the Catholic high school.

While he has consulted with lawyers who told him that George had no legal right to suspend him, he had no intention of suing the Catholic Church, Pfleger said.

But Pfleger said one of his lawyers would send a letter to George saying he violated canonical law by suspending him.

Yes when you have a conflict with your bishop run to the lawyers. Surely that is what St. Padre Pio did when he had his priestly faculties suspended. St. Padre Pio had false charges ascribed to him, yet in obedience he was totally faithful and never complained. In contrast are the actions of Fr. Pfleger.

His answers are just so Clintonian.

[Source]

The intent of this post is not intended to mock those who have the cross of same-sex attraction (SSA), but to mock one of the latest arguments in favor of homosexual acts.

I saw a tweet the other day that was referencing what somebody else had said.

Brilliant! “How Many Gays Must God Create Before We Accept That He Wants Them Around?”

Brilliant was not the first thought that came to my mind. Apparently State Rep. Steve Simon recently offered up this line at a Minnesota Civil Law committee in regards to a Constitutional Amendment “Marriage recognized as only a union between one man and one woman.” Since then a YouTube video of this has gone viral to some extent along with being quoted extensively in tens of thousands of sources.

Unsurprisingly many of the sources passing on this phrase run to the secular and those who normally have no room for God in anything else.

As an argument I did LOL upon hearing it mainly because it was such a bad argument.

First off using this logic:

• God loves gays more than lesbians because he “created” more gays than lesbians.
• God loves heterosexual more than gays and lesbians because he “created” only a small percentage of gays and lesbians.

Or since alcoholism seems to have a genetic disposition does that mean God wants alcoholics around and that we must do nothing to impede their alcoholism.  The above argument would say so since there are more alcoholics that the number of people who have SSA.  Plus of course the argument can be seen a rediculous with simple substitutions such as “How Many Adulteress Must God Create Before We Accept That He Wants Them Around?”

Than there is the idea of God “creating gays”.  Scientific research so far has not identified any genetic disposition towards same-sex attraction.  So the idea of God creating persons with same-sex attraction is problematic on multiple levels including a scientific one.  If there is no genetic predisposition to SSA than in what sense did God create “gays”?  Does God decide when he ensouls life to give one a “gay soul”, another a “lesbian soul”, “bisexual soul”, or mainly a “heterosexual soul?  Perhaps they mean that since God does directly give each person life and that some people go on to have SSA that this means SSA is totally acceptable.  Though that argument would not differentiate between God’s ordained and permissive will.

Of course really the main thing is that this is an emotional rhetorical argument and not one that is suppose to be analyzed.

Now as for God wanting “gays” around, God loves each and everyone one of us regardless of whatever labels are placed on us.  He created each and every one of us by first creating the world and then on an individual level giving us a soul.  SSA is a cross I can’t imagine having to carry, but we are all called to carry a cross not to say our crosses are socially acceptable so that we don’t have anything to repent of.  Those that support homosexuality should be embarrassed that such a lame argument is being used to advance their cause.

I decided to write on this subject since I got an email from SNAP which is promoting what the legislator said.  You wouldn’t think this would be part of SNAP’s agenda at first blush, but I guess they must do all they can to downplay certain aspects of the 2004 John Jay report on priestly abuse.

I do not normally take delight in the death of a fellow human being. Nor do I support the death penalty. But, if there was one man on the planet whom it was important to kill, not to just let die, it was Osama bin Laden. You should not be able to murder well nigh to 3,000 Americans and others with impunity. If you commit such a crime, you should fear every moment of every day that U.S. Special Forces will come crashing through the door to bring you to justice. I am sure bin Laden knew better than to be captured alive. (Given the legal nightmare of Guantanamo, thank God he was killed on the spot!) It took a long time to track bin Laden down, too long, and it is impossible not to think that we might have reached this happy day earlier if we had not detoured through Baghdad. But, this is no time for recriminations. It is time to celebrate.

As I write these words, images of young people streaming into the streets in front of the White House chanting “USA” and singing the National Anthem are coming onto the television screen. If it were not so late and I did not have an early morning, I would drive down myself. Vengeance is not a healthy emotion, I know. Assassination is against the law, to be sure. But, better to indulge and go to confession. I am glad Osama bin Laden did not die in his bed, as I am glad Hitler did not die in his bed and as I am distressed hat Stalin and Mao did. Men who commit such evil do not deserve normal considerations of human sympathy or civilized respect. The world is well rid of bin Laden. It is a great day to be alive.

This is from a typical right-wing Catholic blogger. Oh wait it was from Michael Sean Winters of in the National Catholic Reporter. The Vatican’s statement was.

Osama bin Laden, as we all know, bore the most serious responsibility for spreading divisions and hatred among populations, causing the deaths of innumerable people, and manipulating religions for this purpose.

In the face of a man’s death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred.

No doubt Michael Sean Winters read this and immediately decided to do the opposite. If the Vatican urged us to celebrate his death he would take the opposite tone. Rather interesting that out of almost every single response I read on Catholic blogs his was the most militant and one that did not even offer a prayer for Osama’s soul.

We can certainly be glad that this threat was removed and human justice served. This was a man who did great evil and supported others to do the same. I don’t take any joy that he was killed on the spot while resisting and possibly using a woman as a hostage to protect himself. I am very happy to know that it was a Seal Team that carried out the operation considering that my fellow sailors were killed in the USS Cole attack.

I find it very interesting the reactions of liberals to this. Here was an operation with intelligence from secret foreign prisons and Gitmo where torture was used that then used the military to kill several people without even notifying the government these people were in. It looks like information about the courier that led to this operation came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was tortured. Yet no cries of Obama the cowboy and human rights violator approving a mission without U.N. approval. There is some dispute about whether any of the information did indeed come about via so-called “enhanced interrogations”, but I don’t buy Sen. Feinstein’s denials as to this. When politicians use terms like enhanced and harsh instead of torture I simply don’t believe them. An intrinsic evil is still an evil even if you put a verbal bow on it.

Michael Sean Winters is against the death penalty, but he found an exception. So I guess he is now effectively on the side of Catholics who also think that generally the death penalty should be restricted, but that there are situations that can call for it – which is basically what the Church allows us to believe anyway. Mr. Winters talks you can not kill 3,000 people with impunity. Yet he supported Obama who is the most pro-abortion president in history and around 3,000 people die daily from abortion totally supported by the party he identifies with. Osama has less blood on his hands then the politicians and justices who gave us and kept legal abortion.

THE Catholic Bishop of Toowoomba, William Morris, has been effectively sacked by Pope Benedict XVI over doctrinal disobedience for his support for ordaining women priests and other liberal reform.

In a highly unusual move, Bishop Morris complained in a letter to his followers that he was leaving unwillingly and claimed he had been denied natural justice.

The developments have led to an incipient revolt among at least some sections of the church.

In the letter read out to all congregations in the diocese at weekend masses, pre-empting a Vatican announcement tonight, Bishop Morris, 67, said he had taken early retirement because “it has been determined by Pope Benedict that the diocese would be better served by the leadership of a new bishop”.

It is understood that one of Brisbane’s auxiliary bishops will step into the diocese temporarily as administrator until a new bishop is appointed. Bishops normally do not retire until at least 75.

The usual suspects including those in the diocese are shocked at this action, though they didn’t seem that way over the bishops previous letter.

The bishop’s letter shows things had reached a stalemate after he had been talking to the Vatican for five years.”

In his letter, Bishop Morris said the Vatican’s decision was sparked by complaints to Rome about an Advent letter he wrote in 2006. In that letter, he argued that with an ageing clergy the church should be open to all eventualities, including ordaining women, ordaining married men, welcoming back former priests and recognising the validity of Anglican, Lutheran and Uniting Church orders.

Yes another bishop with a vocation to the papacy.

In contrast to some other provincial dioceses, the priest shortage has been exacerbated by Toowoomba’s appalling record over recent years in attracting virtually no new vocations.

The dearth of vocations in a diocese is almost an infallible indicator of a bishop’s orthodoxy. In fact you could almost measure a bishops heterodoxy using a ratio of priests and pastoral associates. It did not take me long to verify that this was a diocese big on pastoral associates and an extreme lack of priests. Of course there are many factors for the priest shortage but it does seem that in heterodox diocese such as Bishop Morris and Bishop Clarke of Rochester that they seem to create a priest shortage to push reasons to use other than celibate men as priests.

[Article][Via Father Z]

Ironically a lay group might have been partly responsible concerning this forced retirement.

This is the third bishop that we know of who was dismissed this year by the Pope. This is a serious action that no doubt was made as a last straw because removing a bishop from a diocese is about as serious as you get. It’s not like replacing a CEO, it’s more like removing a father from a home. Unfortunately that indeed is required at times.

When I get a unrelated comment on post I am rather suspicious.

What do you think of http://www.sealofconfession.com ? Looks legit…

Especially when the site in question says:

Traditionally, you would need to go to Church, and wait in line at the confessional to speak to a priest about your sins. We have a network of priests who receive your e-mail, pray for you, and reconcile your sins with God.

Before going to confession, a Catholic might “examine her conscience” by reviewing past actions, thoughts, and patterns of behavior. Some Catholics evaluate their behavior in light of the Ten Commandments. Confession of ALL mortal sins is required, but confession of venial sins is optional. However, for every venial sin confessed, God gives grace to help one overcome it. You should be as descriptive as possible. Most Catholics confess DAILY.

Most of the text for this appears to taken from Yahoo! Answers. The site is an obvious scam and was created a couple of days ago. I guess some people might be deceived by such a thing, though a site telling you to write down your mortal sins daily and being loaded with Google Ads is a pretty obvious con. To add to the phoniness they have a testimonial from Rev. Chuck Slawsky, OR. Of course there is no Fr. Slawsky in Oregon or elsewhere.

Update: I see that Fr. Cory already outed this site and found additional information of it’s new age association.

At one time in human history it is believed that almost all causes were direct acts of god and so as to appease the apparent acts of nature that god had to be mollified usually by some form of sacrifice. All of the more destructive parts of nature were often seen in this way. Man’s reason would lead him to the existence of god or gods, but it was an error to see all of the destructive acts of nature as part of direct acts of his active will. God had not yet revealed himself to us and so distinctions such as his active will and his permissive will.

Of course these errors are still made today when some religious figure will say that some destructive act of nature was a purposeful act of God as punishment for sinful behavior.

In modern times though an opposite error has arisen. Believers in anthropomorphic climate-change (or whatever they are calling it at this moment) ascribe all destructive acts of nature to humanity. There seems to be more discernment between what changes in climate are part of a normal cycle that have repeated itself throughout history and to what extent human industrialization has played a part. Almost all the arguments are related in terms of any change without taking into account any natural cycles.

Now I am generally a skeptic of “global climate change” in part because I was not a skeptic of all the coming catastrophes I was taught growing up in sixties and seventies. In the Book of Revelation there is an Armageddon that ends with hope, in the books describing the modern Armageddon of environmental catastrophe there is no hope – but there was also no prophecy since the year 2000 came and went without the destruction those books predicted. It is also a subject I am not dogmatic about since it is a subject involving science and usually at some point false theories are discredited and valid hypothesis are proven. Though this is not a post about the validity of global climate change, but of the attitudes concerning it.

The latest evidence of what I am talking about here is the number of people including John Kerry who are saying the recent destructive tornadoes in the South were the result of global climate change. One person even talked about the correlation between politicians in this area who voted against giving the EPA power to control CO2. The fact that NOAA statistics show that the last 60 years have seen a dramatic increase in the reporting of weak tornadoes, but no change in the number of severe to violent ones is of no relevance to them. It was the same with hurricanes a couple of years back where the same claims were made even though the 1930 say more CAT 5 hurricanes and the last couple of years has been relatively mild despite projections. Living in Florida I certainly don’t take hurricanes lightly. But even if there was a direct causation between warming patterns and these storms, how much of the effect is man-made and how much would have occurred naturally? These are of course questions for science and probably questions that will have to be answered in the further since current climate novels are not predictive in the short to medium range.

For the modern believe of global climate change there are not distinction just as in regards to early humanity. One blames the gods and the other humanity. Global climate changists also believe in sacrifice. Though often it is vicarious sacrifice. That is they believe you should give up all the modern luxuries and live like the Amish while they fly in jets burning up fuel to warn us of the catastrophe and make no sacrifice themselves. Carbon offsets is another kind of sacrifice offered to appease humanity from their environmental destructive ways. I wrote a comparison between Corbon and Carbon Offsets some years back.

And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! For Moses said, `Honor your father and your mother’; and, `He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die’; but you say, `If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban’ (that is, given to God) –then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do.” Mark 7:10-13

Now I don’t quite understand why Jesus was so upset about this, after all it was the first use of a Corban offset. The Pharisees were just working on their Corban footprint. The logic of the Corban offset is quite understandable in modern times. You can neglect taking care of your parents just as long as you say you have given your assets to God while at the same time still making full use of them and their benefits. You can neglect something and not change your own consumption just as long as you say your neglect is being offset by something supposedly good. Extra points if you can find a way to do a Corban offset by buying them from your own company.

Blaming god for everything and blaming humanity for everything are two sides of the same error. God is the author of nature and it is given to us in stewardship. We praise and worship God by thanking him for his gifts and using them appropriately. Actual environmental damage is a rejection of this stewardship. It takes prudence and discernment to make sure we are using what God has given us appropriately and as G.K. Chesterton wrote the Earth is not our mother, but our sister.