The Benedictine Monastery of San Benedetto in Norcia thanks to some generous donations from their patrons, we’ve wired up our Tenebrae services and made podcasts and mp3s of everything. You can see pictures and all the music at www.osbnorcia.org, and click “Tenebrae ’09”
MARYSVILLE, PA (APRIL 2, 2009) – On this fourth anniversary of the death of Pope John Paul the Great, the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, a national association of 600 priests and deacons, urges the University of Notre Dame to honor the memory and legacy of this faithful son of church by rescinding the invitation to President Obama to be Commencement Speaker for this year’s graduation.
As we eagerly await the day when, God willing, JP2 will be beatified and then canonized, we also unequivocally profess our support for his papal letter, Ex Corde Ecclesiae (1990) which requires Catholic colleges and universities to conform, defend and adhere to Magisterial teaching. The decision, however, to afford an openly pro-abortion politician the privilege of speaking to graduating seniors at the commencement violates every principle of Catholic education insofar as it violates both Divine and Natural Law. Pope John Paul II boldly, bravely and unambiguously challenged presidents and prime ministers, congresses and parliaments, capitalists and communists, to defend the inalienable right to life of the unborn and to permanently end the evils of abortion and euthanasia.
While the Confraternity is proud that the first African-American has been elected to the highest office in the land, we also regret and disavow his persistent pro-abortion policies and appointments. It is precisely because of his efforts to undo all the progress of pro-life legislation since the notorious Roe v. Wade decision that we strongly feel he has made himself ineligible for such an invitation as commencement speaker for a Catholic school. As President of the United States of America, he deserves every honor due his office and we totally respect him as our legitimate national civil leader. Nevertheless, the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Moral Law condemn the intentional killing of innocent human lives and therefore any and all politicians, regardless of their level of authority, are ethically obligated to defend the unborn who are the most vulnerable and immanently endangered by the evil of abortion.
We are therefore saddened and outrages that any Catholic institution, let alone a prestigious university like Notre Dame, would afford a public gesture of acceptance and endorsement to a politician who openly supports the so-called legal ‘right’ to ‘choose death’, i.e., the direct killing of an unborn human being. The argument that this invitation merely extends and continues dialogue with those who disagree is a non sequitur. Notre Dame approached President Obama, not vice versa. Speaking at Commencement is not an open debate, it is a monologue. Parents did not pay tuition for celebrities to speak at their son or daughter’s graduation, they paid it to ensure a Catholic education.
The CCC welcomes a respectful debate between opponents and proponents of alleged ‘abortion rights.’ A real disputation will allow logic and reason to demonstrate and prove that the pro-life position is the only moral, ethical and human choice citizens and governments truly have.
A Christian education is rooted in the Divine and Natural Laws as known by faith and reason, both of which affirm the right of the unborn to live after conception. It is an oxymoron at best and an outrageous insult at worst to ask a politician, even a president, who is openly pro-abortion to be Commencement Speaker at a graduation from a Catholic school. President Obama is not only ideologically but also legislatively and administratively proactive in perpetuating and proliferating abortion. Honor the office and respect the man but repudiate and denounce his policies and appointments which endorse and promote the injustice of abortion. Honor the memory of JP2 and keep Catholic colleges and universities faithful to the Magisterium.
One book I was asked to review sounded somewhat promising of an author going around the world visiting relics in various places. Rag and Bone: A Journey Among the World’s Holy Dead, by Peter Manseau starts off rather promising as he visits Saint Francis Xavier’s to in Goa, India and even connects the issue of relics with seeing the ultrasound of his daughter. A book that explored the use of relics by various religions and even just a sociological look at relics would be at least somewhat interesting.
Unfortunately that is not the book the author wrote. There is much about relics that can lead to comical material. In Church history there have been many quite dubious relics and abuses as relic sellers would con laity and clergy. Even St. Augustine lamented about this going on in the early Church. This book seemed mainly to me to be about making fun of relics and people’s belief in them. So what you get is a chapter on Jesus’ foreskin and the various ones that had been venerated along with the history of this. Other chapters deal with other religions so we also get information about Mohammed’s whisker and Buddha’s teeth. The various pieces of the dead seemed to have been picked for chapters based on how ridiculous they were.
He did get around to the most famous relic of all – The Shroud of Turin. Since this didn’t fit his template of being ridiculous he took a different angle. One of the discoveries in most recent years is that on the shroud are contained pollens native to the area where Jesus was buried. So he advanced the idea that those pollens came to shroud from visitors to the shroud. Of course this was done without addressing any of the other facts about the shroud – as if just this one possibility was enough to dismiss it. Though since this is a comedic take on relics it is no surprise that he did not want to address the thousands of relics that do not have dubious pasts or even the miraculous stories surrounding them in modern times.
What I did find interesting was that various religious also venerated relics and what religions of parts of a religion didn’t. It might have been interesting if he had addressed the religious instinct in regards to relics even if from a secular view.
The beginning chapter on the toe of St. Francis Xavier casts this saint as a racist and proto-colonists who left India largely because of his racist views. Though the author uses much hyperbole and so sometimes it is difficult to discern when he is serious and is joking around. At one point he calls taking a relics stealing from the dead, but in relation to the rest of what he says it is again hard to tell if this is what he believes.
Each chapter of the book entails his travel to see a specific relic and the people he meets there. As a writer he is certainly capable and takes good advantage of the comedic elements and the book mainly stresses the comedic elements. When talking about the Holy Prepuce (foreskin) of Jesus he references a scriptor in the Vatican Library Leo Allatius who speculated that the Holy Foreskin may have ascended into Heaven at the same time as Jesus himself and might have become the rings of Saturn. As far as I can tell this bit is true, but he says other things in the book that make me rather dubious of his research such as saying that in modern times “mention of the foreskin became of punishable offense in ecclesiastical circles”. At another point in referencing canonization says it is something only a Pope can initiate, when of course the reality is that the local bishop is the one to initiate this. He studies religion at Georgetown so this probably explains this.
So when it comes to this book I say pass.
Today I saw this at the NRO Corner which had some suggested books by various people associated with them. This one was by Fr. George Rutler.
I would recommend Christ in His Mysteries
by Blessed Columba Marmion.
Marmion, an Irishman who became Abbot of Maredsous Abbey in Belgium, and a leading spiritual writer of the twentieth century, approached the Resurrection through the liturgy, as the Church’s living and ongoing experience of Christ alive and at work in the world.
I had actually just completed reading this book last night and can certainly second his recommendation. I had previously read two other books from Blessed Marmion’s and so when I received “Christ in His Mysteries
” I was prepared for reading another great books from this spiritual master. This is the second book of a trilogy that started with “Christ, the Life of the Soul” and I would guess that the third one is also being translated from the original French.
Once again the translator has done some excellent work by bringing Blessed Marmion’s writing to us with a theological accuracy. There are footnotes throughout to explain theological fine points. The book also contains an introduction by both Fr. Groeschel and Fr. Aidan Nichols. We are given the theology of Christ with a Pauline perspective that is simply amazing in it spiritual and theological depth. It is quite telling that Blessed Marmion knew the New Testament by heart since his writing is soaked with the Gospels and the other books of the New Testament. Marmion is the great teacher when it comes to the theology of adoption and I would not be surprised in the least if one day he is declared a Doctor of the Church for how much he has contributed to this theology.
There is just so much in this book which covers 450 some pages to really go into much detail, but it is such an amazing accomplishment and while not light reading it is spiritual reading that will bear much fruit. Incarnation theology is especially explored in the first section of the book and his role of high priest. Further chapters explore specific liturgical seasons and events in the life of Christ which is divided into several sections addressing the main topic. Just a great book and it deserves to be on you bed stand (and read).
Having read several books on the life of St. Francis of Assisi and so am fairly acquainted with this saint and his life. Well at least I thought I was. Reading Francis of Assisi by Michael De La Bedoyere which was written in 1962 but recently re-released by Sophia Institute Press I was quite happy to get an even better feel for this great saint. In some ways it reminds me of G.K. Chesterton book on St. Francis in some of the insights, though it is much better researched.
The book starts off describing St. Francis overcoming his fear of leapers by approaching one and kissing his hand. This chapter really set the tone for the book in its imaginative portrayal of this event like a Louis De Wohl novel. The following chapters give a more straight-forward history of Francis’ early life up through his death.
One thing surprised me and I am not sure why I never picked up on this fact ,is that as the book says he is the only saint canonized with a nickname. His baptismal name was Giovanni and his nickname Francis comes from the Frenchman which is what others came to call him. How he got this nickname is lost in history, but probably is associated with this French mother or the many trips his father as a merchant took to France and had probably taken his son along.
I really like how the author handled the life of St. Francis to mostly sticking to what we actually know about his life and not trying to artificially fill in the gaps. Some of the writings that came after St. Francis’ death are filled with miracle stories and while the author pretty much sticks with the facts he is not dismissive of some of these events. In fact at times he gives good reasons why some of them should be believed, especially the stigmata.
More than other books I read on St. Francis I got a much better feel for the times he lived in and especially the people of Assisi. You really get the context of the times and the concerns of the Church. The story of St. Francis really is all the more amazing considering the turmoil of the time in regards to the clergy and the number of heretical groups on the scene. I also really liked the focus on St. Francis orthodoxy and how he had worked closely with his own bishop and had built up support and friendships in Rome. The silly modern view of St. Francis as a free-wheeling environmental hippie is quite at odds with the real saint and how he saw obedience. You get some idea of his strong personality and his ability to convince those in the Church’s hierarchy when it came to his Gospel ideals. A true fool for Christ in his seeing of the simplicity of the Gospel message and how his order could live this out.
The books is also not a hagiography in the sense of presenting Francis as some idealized saint. It does not veer away at the few episodes of St. Francis anger when he saw his order veering away from Lady Poverty into gaining possession. Also addressed was the fact that he was not always the best judge of people as seems evident by the person he left in charge of the order and the turmultiotus times ahead for the Franciscans after his death.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and felt that I understand St. Francis much better than I previously had. I was surprised to find that the author of the book was himself not a Franciscan since I felt that the book was written by someone who had spend a lifetime thinking about this saint. I will have to read his other saint biographies.
This review was written as part of the Catholic book Reviewer program from The Catholic Company. Visit The Catholic Company to find more information on Francis of Assisi .
Catholic journalist and blogger Robert Kumpel tells his story of how investigating something at his parish got him banned from his parish (only one in town) by the Bishop.
He also tells part of the story on his blog.
Some background on the scandal in question since he is restricted about mentioning anything about his investigation himself.
There were some who criticized me for my less than exuberant feeling about Tony Blair’s entrance into the Church. Here is an I told you so.
ony Blair has challenged the “entrenched” attitudes of the Pope on homosexuality, and argued that it is time for him to “rethink” his views.
Speaking to the gay magazine Attitude, the former Prime Minister, himself now a Roman Catholic, said that he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal, and suggested that in time this would make all religious groups accept gay people as equals.
Asked about the Pope’s stance, Mr Blair blamed generational differences and said: “We need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.”
“…There are many good and great things the Catholic Church does, and there are many fantastic things this Pope stands for, but I think what is interesting is that if you went into any Catholic Church, particularly a well-attended one, on any Sunday here and did a poll of the congregation, you’d be surprised at how liberal-minded people were.” The faith of ordinary Catholics is rarely found “in those types of entrenched attitudes”, he said.[reference]
It seemed to me at the time that Mr. Blair had done nothing to repent of and recant what he had done as Prime Minister that was gravely evil. Part of repairing the damage one has done is to do something to correct it, something that there has been no sign of. Though I hold Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor more responsible for bringing him into the Church probably knowing that he would perjure himself in saying that he accepted all that the Church taught. A high-profile convert such as Tony Blair only brings scandal until such that that I pray he repents.
“There are some ideas and some causes that a Catholic college campus cannot treat pleasantly,” wrote the outraged editors. “Doesn’t deliberate opposition to Catholic social doctrine come close to being anti-Catholic?”
History can be humbling. The editors eager to censor views they disagreed with were the Jesuits at America. The object of their ire was the outspoken conservative William F. Buckley Jr. The year was 1961, and the dispute erupted over an editorial in Buckley’s magazine, the National Review. Pope John XXIII’s encyclical Mater et magistra, the editorial claimed, “struck many as a venture in triviality.” The National Review editors speculated that the new encyclical would, like Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, “become the source of embarrassed explanations.” Buckley had judged Mater et magistra insufficiently alarmed over the threat of communism, and in turn America’s editors judged Buckley insufficiently docile in his reception of doctrine, and urged that he be banned from speaking at Catholic colleges. The National Review is “a journal which, in our opinion, seriously and consistently undercuts positions which we judge to be central to our faith, the natural law, or the explicit and long established social doctrines of the church,” wrote America’s editors. Thus what might have been an honest and useful dispute over the interpretation and scope of church teaching quickly degenerated into a show trial regarding Buckley’s Catholic loyalties. (See Garry Wills’s Politics and Catholic Freedom.)
Commonweal is trying to setup a parallel here when it comes to Notre Dame, they do have one real problem. The fuller quote is:
“Whatever its final effect, it must strike many as a venture in triviality coming at this particular time in history” since “there is scant mention” of the successes of the Communists and “insufficient notice is taken (of) the extraordinary material well-being” of countries like Japan, West Germany, and the United States.
In fact in later issues of NR that year Buckley also said:
“National Review (29 July 1961) 38.Actually, National Review has made no substantive criticism of Mater et Magistra. Simplistic interpretations in secular terms are notoriously unwise. It merely pointed out that ‘coming at this particular time in history,’ parts of it may be considered as trivial.”
William F. Buckley, Jr. National Review (23 September 1961) 188. “The editorial in question spoke not one word of criticism of the intrinsic merit of Mater et Magistra. Our disappointment was confined to the matter of emphasis, and timing, and by implication, to the document’s exploitability by the enemies of Christendom, a premonition rapidly confirmed by the Encyclical’s obscene cooption by such declared enemies of the spiritual order as the New Statesman and the Manchester Guardian, which hailed the conversion of the Pope to Socialism!”
Pundits commenting on the timing of Vatican documents is rather common and in fact this is often a common complaint that the Vatican will issue a document on a subject that seems to be years late in response. Interestingly the part that Commonweal quotes can be found on the internet only on Commonweal and a George Will book. There was a quite common urban legend that Buckley had said “Mater si, Magistra no” and George Will quotes this as being the article title that had the initial criticism. This was totally false and in fact Buckley said that George Wills was the source of this quip that was briefly mentioned in “For the Record” section containing Multiple items. It is not something that was ever a NR column title or something that Buckley ever said. But this has been used for years as an example of conservative disloyalty to the Church. But I guess it says a lot that the example they use was no such thing.
The Buckley and Obama incidents are not, of course, strictly analogous. Obama is not a Catholic, and his support for legalized abortion is a more serious problem than Buckley’s alleged rejection of papal teaching.
Yeah not strictly analogous or even in the same ballpark or that matter same moral universe. Have to love the complaining about the timing as an “alleged rejection of papal teaching.” Funny how Commonweal can actively deny papal teaching on so many subjects and find that Buckley’s case could be considered as rejection of papal teaching.
Prudential judgment was also needed in assessing Pope John’s encyclical. In both cases, however, the real issue is how the motives of those with whom we disagree about the application of church teaching are put in the dock. In the Buckley case, the papacy’s outraged defenders could imagine only two options: either Buckley accepts the encyclical in its entirety, or he is an apostate. In Notre Dame’s invitation to Obama, the university’s critics see a similar betrayal on the part of the university’s administration. Thus the invitation to Obama has been damned as a symptom of the school’s craven desire for recognition and prestige, its slavish obedience to “elite” liberal opinion, and its perverse determination to betray its Catholic identity.
Was there really such an outrage over Buckley’s comment about encyclical’s timing when it came out? Notice how Commonweal gives the basis of the motives a strawman that has not been the thrust of the argument made by so man. I can hardly remember anybody giving this as the motive, and the argument was about the invite itself and how it was scandalous, not an attribution of motives to Fr. Jenkins and his administration.
Some of the objections to the invitation have been more reasonable. Some say that a Catholic university might legitimately invite President Obama to give a talk or to engage in a colloquy, but giving him an honorary degree is tantamount to an imprimatur. Yet university officials have made no secret of Notre Dame’s disagreement with the president about abortion and stem-cell research, and certainly the president and the public cannot be in doubt about the church’s opposition to his policies in those areas. Honorary degrees signify an institution’s admiration for the accomplishments of the recipient. They do not signify blanket moral approbation
Thanks a lot that you acknowledge that “some” of the objections are reasonable. Sorry though you just can’t make noise about being pro-life and then pass out honors. If an honorary medical degree was given to a doctor who assisted in suicides you could not just use the excuse that you are against suicides. When you give an honorary law degree to a supposed Constitutional scholar who believes that abortion is shrined in the Constitution your are honoring his legal views – no two ways around that. Of course as the USCCB stated they are not to receive honors at all in the first place.
The church is not simply the prolife movement, and to the extent that every interaction between the church and our political system is held hostage to the demands of the most confrontational elements of that movement, the church’s social message, including its message about abortion, will be marginalized and ineffectual.
What! “The church is not simply the prolife movement” – wow we didn’t know that. I think it is a law that dissidents must bring up the single issue thing at every chance. Sorry the Church message about abortion is marginalized and ineffectual when so-called social justice types are not bothered by it and people who support murder of the innocent are seen as an acceptable pick to honor. Every time pro-abortion advocates are picked out as being acceptable you are saying that there belief is not beyond the pale. If they advocated the death penalty for the homeless they would be shunned at every level. But advocate the murder of the innocent in the womb, then it is just one issue of many. We must never forget the evil of abortion and must never minimize it – unfortunately when we coddle the supporters of the culture of death we are forgetting exactly that. But of course Commonweal did not spend any time being outraged about the President removing the Mexico City policy or federally supporting embryonic stem-call research and removing federal funding for adult stem-cell research. No they keep their ire for pro-life Catholics being upset about what the Notre Dame invite means.
The Sorosification of Catholic dissidents continues, via Creative Minority Report and Nice Deb.
There is a new “We Support Notre Dame” site with petition
Tom Mattzie, the founder of the “We Support Notre Dame,” is a political activist and a key leader of George Soros funded MoveOn.org, the radical far left smear website.
George Soros is also a financial backer behind two other groups Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United.
Is it sinful to vandalize a petition? Well I gave them an entry with Moloch Demon from 5432 Abortion Lane, Washington, D.C.
They link to a Facebook Group that is being run by Anne Hayner who suprise, surprise is part of “Peace and Justice” studies at Notre Dame. I do hate how Social Justice has been corrupted to mean everything, but Peace and Justice for the unborn. So many of these groups are based on pure relativism with the old “one of many issues” to downplay the murder of innocents. Please can’t we have a preferential love of the poor and the poorest of the poor – the unborn?
They can come up with outrage when Catholics speaks out against the Notre Dame invite, yet somehow can’t come up with any outrage when the same President signs murderous executive orders and seeks to withdraw conscience protection. Stop viewing things via a political lens and learn what the Church teaches and why.
offers the perfect responsorial Psalm for his funeral Mass and one I who heartily agree with since it was so often quote in his books (and the Fathers of the Church for that matter.)
Update: He has also decided start a new blog to study the writing of Pierre Duhem and Stanley L. Jaki two great Catholic historians of science called The Duhem Society.