THE NEW Superior General of the Jesuits, Fr Adolfo Nicolás Pachón, has spoken out in defence of liberation theology, writes Jon Stibbs.

In an interview with the Spanish national El Periódico, the Spaniard described liberation theology as “a courageous and creative response to an unbearable situation of injustice in Latin America”. Fr Nicolás regretted that the South American based movement had not been given a “vote of confidence” from other church leaders. “It needs more time,” he said.

While liberation theology was becoming established in South America Fr Nicolás was working in Asia where he developed a reputation as a liberal. He defines the Jesuits’ work as helping “the poor, the marginalised and the excluded”, and has said he is more interested in missionaries’ “cultural dialogue with local people” than imposing doctrinal orthodoxy. [reference]

I guess that he then also regrets the smackdown on Liberation Theology written by then-Cardinal Josef Ratzinger.

I guess he didn’t get the hint from Pope Benedict XVI when he spoke to the Jesuits shortly after the election of the new Jesuit General when he said “that harmony with the magisterium that avoids causing confusion and uncertainty among the People of God.” Nd referring to all members of the Society of Jesus said they should “adhere completely to the Word of God as well as to the magisterium’s charge of conserving the truth and unity of Catholic doctrine in its entirety.” I guess the new fourth vow is to undermine the magisterium on theology.

I prefer “Libation Theology.” Take a drink every time a Jesuit dissents from the Pope.

Fr. John Malloy, SDB reports that Mr. Carrizosa who is an acolyte and lector at San Francisco’s infamous Most Holy Redeemer parish has “married” his male partner. He also reports that by his count this makes five people serving liturgical roles in the parish as having gotten “married.”

Father than quotes from “Redemptionis Sacramentum” #46

“The lay Christian faithful called to give assistance at liturgical celebrations should be well instructed and must be those whose Christian life, morals and fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium recommend them.”

Archbishop George H. Niederauer has written a letter in response to the aftermath of the passage of Proposition 8 in California which ends saying.

…Tolerance, respect, and trust are always two-way streets, and tolerance respect and trust often do not include agreement, or even approval. We need to be able to disagree without being disagreeable. We need to stop talking as if we are experts on the real motives of people with whom we have never even spoken. We need to stop hurling names like “bigot” and “pervert” at each other. And we need to stop it now.

For our part, we churchgoers need to speak and act out of the truth that all people are God’s children and are unconditionally loved by God. While we argue among ourselves, the people who need our help with hunger, unemployment, homelessness and other problems wait for us to turn together toward them. More particularly, we Catholics in the Archdiocese of San Francisco need to minister to the needs of all Catholics in this local Church. Whoever they are, and whatever their circumstances, their spiritual and pastoral rights should be respected, together with their membership in the Church. In that spirit, with God’s grace and much prayer, perhaps we can all move forward together.

The aftermath has been rather ugly including the keeping of blacklists on people who supported it. I guess in Hollywood blacklists are now okay and pretty soon we will have a House Committee on Un-Homosexual Activities

I like the basic thrust of the Bishop’s letter which as a pastoral letter is aimed at those with same-sex attraction. I do wish it was beefier on what the Church teaches.

The fact remains that, under California law, after the passage of Proposition 8, same sex couples who register as domestic partners will continue to have “the same rights, protections and benefits” as married couples. Proposition 8 simply recognizes that there is a difference between traditional marriage and a same sex partnership.

Though the truth is that Church also condemns so-called civil unions.

It is highly ironic that homosexual activists want to force people who believe that homosexual activity is sinful and are concerned for their souls should not have their opinion in public and should be forced into the closet. One video of a group of homosexuals following and shouting down a Christian group was also highly ironic. At one point one of them says “How dare they come into our neighborhood.” Tolerance has been turned into a blunt instrument forcing unanimity of opinion. A one way street is Tolerance Ave. Unfortunately any disapproval of homosexual acts is branded as homophobia and hatred and no other possible motive is allowed.

As then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote.

…There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”

…Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered” and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”

Though praying for those who suffer with the heavy cross of same-sex attraction is now considered hatred.

Cherie Blair has been invited to speak at a major Pontifical University in Rome. Auntie Joanna write about it.

It seems likely that the organisers of this event do not know about the speaker’s strong association with Planned Parenthood. She is British and is simply well-known as a lawyer and the wife of a leading public figure. It is crucial, therefore, that the University is informed.

The speaker, Mrs Cherie Blair, hosted a major fund-raising event for Planned Parenthood at 10 Downing Street in 2003, promoting condoms for teenagers under the slogan “Lust for Life”. She honoured the 75th anniversary celebrations of Britain’s Family Planning Association – the leading campaigning movement for abortion in Britain – as the special celebrity guest, cutting the celebration cake and being photographed brandishing a condom. And no, it isn’t the case that the FPA or Planned Parenthood do other things than abortion and contraception – so she wasn’t helping them with other projects. They don’t make quilts or serve tea to the poor, or teach mathematics or help Auntie with the housework…they promote abortion and contraception: that’s what they were established to do, and that’s what they do, and when Mrs Blair raises funds for them she knows that what the funds are for.

Mrs Blair is a leading supporter of organisations working at the United Nations to promote abortion worldwide. Read about this here.

There is no reason whatever why Mrs Blair should speak at a Pontifical University. The Church can draw on many excellent women speakers with superb credentials to tackle issues concerning women’s rights and freedoms – it is absurd to invite instead some one who passionately supports organisations promoting abortion.

Father Powell, OP is currently at the Angelicum and has emailed Sr. Helen Alford, OP, asking for a little clarification

An astute and generous ruler, a brilliant general, and one of the most imaginative
and energetic builders of the ancient world, …

Now who could the National Geographic be talking about? Why of course it is King
Herod the Great!

Herod guided his kingdom to new prosperity and power.

He was all about hope and change.

Yet today he is best known as the sly and murderous monarch of Matthew’s Gospel,
who slaughtered every male infant in Bethlehem in an unsuccessful attempt to
kill the newborn Jesus, the prophesied King of the Jews. During the Middle
Ages he became an image of the Antichrist: Illuminated manuscripts and Gothic
gargoyles show him tearing his beard in mad fury and brandishing his sword
at the luckless infants, with Satan whispering in his ear. Herod is almost
certainly innocent of this crime, of which there is no report apart from Matthew’s
account.

Wow I guess I can forget about the Holy Innocents. Thanks National Geographic!

But children he certainly slew, including three of his own sons, along with his
wife, his mother-in-law, and numerous other members of his court. Throughout
his life, he blended creativity and cruelty, harmony and chaos, in ways that
challenge the modern imagination. [article]

Now I am confused. We know about how Herod murdered his relatives based on only
one account by Josephus written around 93 or 94. Yet the account by Matthew
written earlier and passed on by people living within living memory of King
Herod is not credible. National Geographic also calls Josephus a "hostile biographer " So I guess the one source rule can be used selectively
depending on the outcome you want. Besides somebody who murdered many family
members out of a paranoid feat of being usurped could not possibly react
like the Herod in Matthew’s account – oh wait.

Just in time for Christmas National Geographic has the television show and a
game called "Herod’s Lost Tomb" available for multiple platforms and even the iPhone/iPod Touch. Too bad according to them the slaughter of the innocents
isn’t true or they could have released a First Person Stabber where you hack at under two year old’s in Bethlehem. Surely next on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel we will soon get titles like "The Real Herod."