Catholic to the Left

Whoa there!

2007-12-20T11:58:00.001-06:00

Pius XII's case for beatification just hit a speed bump, courtesy of his current successor, Pope B16. Pius has been accused of being overly friendly with the Nazi government, having negotiated a concordat with it before becoming pope, and Jewish groups especially have protested his possible beatification. Quite wisely, the current pope is gathering a committee to do further research, according to Reuters.

The Pius XII controversy, however, indicates one of the problems with the current beatification process: Beatification/canonization has become some kind of stamp of approval--for a religious founder, a pope, what have you--instead of a reflection of actual devotion. JPII and Mother Teresa probably have legitimate causes, but Pius XII? Where are the faithful with a devotion to him? But I think some are pushing his beatification as a way to clear his name, which could be a disaster if it is ever discovered that he failed in some spectacular way during a critical time in history.

No matter what, you have to have compassion for the guy that was pope during those terrible years. But making him a saint is probably not the best strategy to show it.

Compass review heads south

2007-12-12T10:25:00.000-06:00

Caving to Bill Donohue's Catholic League, CNS has pulled the generally positive review its film reviewer gave The Golden Compass.

First Brokeback Mountain, now this. Glad I’m not reviewing movies for the USCCB! In both cases CNS reviewer Harry Forbes provided a thoughtful evaluation, commenting both on artistic/cinematic value and moral content. In both cases "someone" intervened to get the review pulled. You can find the story at the Baltimore Sun. Archbishop Edward O'Brien of that city expressed relief that the review had been taken down because it caused "confusion."

The review is still available for the time being at Catholic Online.

Funny clip from the “morally problematic” elements of the film, with which USCCB reviews always end: "The film contains intense but bloodless fantasy violence, anti-clerical subtext, standard genre occult elements, a character born out of wedlock and a whiskey-guzzling bear."

Since when is a “character born out of wedlock” morally objectionable? Though the whiskey-guzzling bear is enough to prevent me from seeing the film. Polar bears are suffering enough! As for the anti-clerical subtext, well . . .

Where angels fear to tread

2007-12-10T13:18:00.000-06:00

With an election year nearly upon us, most commentators on things Catholic are focusing on politics and Catholic interactions with it, from abortion, euthanasia, and gay marriage to health care and the war in Iraq. But there is an equally interesting debate going on right now, this one theological, about Catholicism and the significance of other world religions--and it can be just as bruising.

The latest casualty is Peter Phan, a Vietnamese American professor of theology at Georgetown, whose book Being Religious Interreligiously (Orbis) just got the doctrinal ding from the U.S. bishops' committee on doctrine. Outlined in a 15-page statement, the committee judged Phan's work deficient on three grounds: the uniqueness of Christ in the history of salvation, the place and purpose of other religions, and the uniqueness of the church as the "universal sacrament of salvation" for all people. Phan, a priest of Dallas, joins Jesuits Jacques Dupuis and Roger Haight on the list of Catholic theologians censured for being overly generous toward other religions.

What makes Phan's case interesting is that the US bishops are the ones dealing with it, rather than the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (We are still waiting to see if the CDF will weigh in.) Also of interest is the role that the August 2000 (and recently reaffirmed) CDF document Dominus Iesus is playing. Though issued "only" by the CDF, it is being relied upon to fill in the blanks left by Vatican II, which was silent on many of these interreligious questions--whether God wills other religions, for example. (Vatican II at least answered in the affirmative for Judaism.) But Dominus Iesus is still a document of the Curia--it's not even technically a "papal" document, though it does have Pope John Paul II's signature on it. It's a "declaration" of the CDF and doesn't quite carry the gravitas of a Vatican II document.

Still, it looks like trying to tackle the reality of religious pluralism is a recipe for rebuke. Too bad, too, since it's more necessary than ever.

I can't believe we're still doing this...

2007-12-07T12:57:00.000-06:00

CNS coverage of the plenary indulgence for Lourdes, in case you want the plenary for the 150th anniversary of Mary's appearance at Lourdes. It’s ever so Catholic:

1. Option 1: Visit Lourdes any time between Dec 8 2007 and Dec 8 2008 (Immaculate Conception); visit the following four places, preferable “in order”: The parish where St. Bernadette was baptized; the Soubirous family home; the Massabielle grotto; the chapel where St. Bernadette received her first Communion. (Be sure and get the order down; the indulgence may not stick if you do it backward.) At each location the faithful should end their meditation by praying the Lord's Prayer, the creed and the special jubilee prayer or a prayer to Mary.

2. Option 2: Visit any public sanctuary, shrine or other worthy place dedicated to Our Lady of Lourdes to receive the indulgence Feb. 2 (Feast of the Presentation) to Feb 11 (first apparition). Include prayers. There should be some communal service involved.

3. Option 3: Do it at home between Feb 2 and Feb 11. (!!) Presumably this is only for the sick and elderly who can’t make the trip. But it’s a nice touch.

At least Martin Luther can rest easy that the indulgence is not being sold. If they’d done it this way then, St. Peter’s never would have been built!

But I still can’t believe that we’re still talking about “temporal punishment due to sin.” (Incidentally, you can apply the plenary to the poor souls in purgatory.) Purgatory’s a nice idea and all—we’re always trying to make sure everyone gets a zillion chances at heaven—but sometimes I think we get too specific. I’m into Catholic exotica, but this stuff (private revelation) is all totally OPTIONAL after all (Lourdes at least, if not purgatory too).

But I guess it can’t hurt to run up to Leland and Ashland here in Chicago and grab the plenary--that's where the local Our Lady of Lourdes Parish can be found. Bases covered and all.

Of course, if the BVM appears to me, I’m going to have a lot of explaining to do…

More on the new USCCB president

2007-11-13T09:50:00.001-06:00

Jason Berry, a journalist who has produced a lot of the coverage of the sex abuse crisis in the church, wrote an op-ed in Sunday's LA Times that should raise eyebrows. It is disturbing that George gets credit for getting Rome to agree to the Dallas Charter but then in his own archdiocese doesn't seem to take sex abuse seriously. Berry also gives coverage to one of George's auxiliaries, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, a canon and civil lawyer, who argued at the "Red Mass" for lawyers and judges that the church was under attack. As covered by Berry: " 'The church is under attack," Paprocki declared, comparing the civil litigation to Henry VIII's seizure of "church property and kill[ing] those who did not accept his notion of the supremacy of the crown.' "

Phew! We're not the only ones

2007-11-13T09:11:00.000-06:00

Thus describes the relief expressed by some U.S. bishops that sex abuse is just as bad everywhere else as it is in the church.

Say that again?

That's right, the new John Jay study tracking sex abuse in the U.S. church reports that the increase in sex abuse in the church mirrors that in the rest of society. Even more, the study's author, Karen Terry, suggested, according to the Baltimore Sun that it was "not something distinct about the church that led to the abuse." She went on to express the desire to (quoting the Sun) "better understand the connection between societal changes--including attitudes about sex and homosexuality--and the jump in reports of sexual abuse by priests."

Huh? Tagging the gays again, eh? What connection could there possibly be? That the sexual revolution caused more sex abuse, or that it led to people reporting sex abuse? It is disturbing that, for no apparent reason, Terry felt like she had to mention homosexuality, forgetting once again that most pedophiles are married heterosexual men and that most victims of sexual abuse and assault are female.

What good may come out of this is the recognition that the sexual abuse of children is pervasive in society and goes well beyond the Catholic church. Now the church has the opportunity to be a model and advocate for stamping this kind of abuse out. Will the bishops rise to the challenge?

Well, since they're getting ready to elect Francis George of Chicago as president, who hardly has a spotless record in this regard (you can read Chicago Sun-Times coverage here), I doubt it's going to be high on the agenda.

Guess who's coming to America...

2007-11-12T16:27:00.000-06:00

The pope is coming! The pope is coming!

It's official, according to the Associated Press: B16 is coming to the U.S. of A. in April, visiting Our Nation's Capital and Our Nation's Other Capital (New York). On the docket are meetings with President Bush, meetings with other religious leaders, and, interestingly, meetings with Catholic university presidents. (Hmmm ... university presidents?) And an address to the United Nations.

The press is focusing heavily on the pope's visit to Ground Zero, linking it to the possible candidacy of Rudy Giuliani--a thrice-married Catholic-who-doesn't-go-to-Mass (as the press has been describing him). Not sure what the connection is there--something about abortion and gay marriage or something. No one seems to mention that about half the Democratic field is Catholic.

But I have to wonder: Why is the pope coming to the U.S. during a presidential election year? The nominations will probably be decided by April, of course, but still...

Of course, we're going to be treated to not one but two baseball stadium Masses--yuck! The homes of the Washington Nationals and the New York Yankees will play host to liturgical extravaganzas, which, I have to say, I find to be the most bizarre invention of John Paul II. A mass with 30,000 people is kind of silly, liturgically speaking.

Sorry, all you JPII lovers, I know you love those things. But I think they're liturgical nightmares. My humble opinion... I wonder if it will be in Latin...

Ordained in a synagogue?

2007-11-12T12:36:00.000-06:00

Though I thought Archbishop Raymond Burke's dramatic letters to the St. Louis women ordained as part of the Womenpriests movement were a little overwrought, I can't say I agree with their tactics. There is something profoundly strange about ordaining Christian ministers in a synagogue--and I wonder if many Jews wouldn't feel the same--and, frankly, I think it points to the problem with the whole Womenpriests movement: their understanding of ordination. (Read St. Louis Post-Dispatch's coverage here.)

Many people question restricting Holy Orders to men, but I think the real problem is with our current understanding of priesthood. Over history, ordination has increasingly been separated from local churches (dioceses) and parish communities. Theology, strongly influenced by St. Thomas Aquinas' understanding of the sacraments, came to see priests as a "cause" that made the sacraments possible, which unfortunately has given us an almost magical understanding of the sacraments, as if by some virtue conferred at ordination, a priest "transforms" ordinary bread and wine into Christ's body and blood. A more developed understanding of ordained ministry recognizes God's grace at work in the action of the church gathered (the liturgical assembly) and its ordained leader--and doesn't separate the head of the assembly from the body.

The Womenpriests, in my view anyway, have adopted that problematic theology. The first ones were ordained on a boat in the Danube River by an unidentified bishop--technically outside any local church community. Now two have been ordained in a synagogue. What can that possibly mean? Now they have the magic and can "perform" sacraments like any other priest?

I empathize with those who feel called to ordained ministry in the Roman Catholic Church whom the church will not ordain because they are women or married or gay or lesbian. It seems to me that many have God-given desires that have been affirmed by their faith communities--the mix that I think should lead to ordination. But including those people in an unreformed structure of ordination won't necessarily make that structure more just, and it may serve only to solidify distinctions between lay and ordained.

What we need first is a renewed theology of ministry--one that begins with baptism rather than ordination. Then I think the question of ordination, and who is ordained, and to what ministry, might look quite a bit different.

Bring back the rack?

2007-11-09T16:57:00.000-06:00

The archbishop of St. Louis, Raymond Burke, has upped the ante in ecclesiastical penalties, according to the Associated Press. In threatening two women who will be ordained this weekend as part of the Womenpriests movement, Burke suggested a fate worse than excommunication:

"Burke reminded [the women] that the pope has stated infallibly that only men can receive a valid ordination, and wrote that 'in order to protect the faithful from grave spiritual deception' if they go forward, they would 'incur automatically ... the censure of excommunication.'

"Further, Burke wrote, 'additional disciplinary measures will also have to be imposed.'"

Rose Marie Dunn Hudson, one of the ordinands, wins for best comeback: "What is he going to do, burn us at the stake, or what?"

Probably "or what." I think there's a museum of the Inquisition somewhere in Mexico where Burke could do some research. Maybe he'll get lost in there.

Looks like the road to women's ordination just got bumpier.

Come out at Mass! Or not.

2007-11-09T16:56:00.000-06:00

Not much to blog about of late, but a press release titled "Fr. Euteneuer responds to Jesuit who 'came out' at Mass" caught a colleague's attention. Euteneuer is president of Human Life International, which bills itself as "pro-life" missionaries to the world. His "open letter" to Jesuit Thomas Brennan, who came out at a student Mass at St. Joseph University in Philadelphia, carried the usual denunciations of the "unholy desire" Father Brennan acknowledged. (Only Euteneuer's site and Lifesite News covered the incident.)

Ironically enough, I did find myself agreeing with one of Euteneuer's points (though not his constant personal attacks against Brennan):

"Holy Mass is not a forum for your self-expression. You chose the sacred liturgy and the pulpit reserved for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the launching pad for your personal testament to homosexuality ... You've read the same documents I've read about the liturgy, and none of them say the liturgy is your personal stage."

True enough, and it is a criticism that could be leveled equally against priests and homilists of various political persuasions. Though I think it can be appropriate for priests to come out--and thus put the lie to the claim that gay priests are somehow a danger to the church--the liturgy isn't the place. The Christian assembly has other work to do, and it needs its leader to stick to the task at hand.

But I do wonder why two prolife websites are so concerned about a relatively minor incident at a small Catholic college in Pennsylvania. What does a gay priest have to do with abortion or euthanasia?

Pope poo-pooed Pio

2007-10-26T16:55:00.000-05:00

Padre Pio, the famous stigmatic who died in 1968 and was canonized in 2002, had one very high-placed doubter: Pope John XXIII. The late pope wrote in his personal diaries, according the U.K. Times Online: "I am sorry for PP, who has a soul to be saved, and I pray for him intensely. What happened - that is, the discovery because of the films - si vera sunt quae referentur (if it is true what they say) - of his intimate and incorrect relations with the women who constitute his Pretorian guard, which even now stands firm around him, leads one to think of a vast disaster of souls which has been diabolically set up to discredit the Holy Church in the world, and especially in Italy." Ouch! The Times further reports that Pio's much-celebrated stigmata was self-inflicted with carbolic acid. Don't know the background on PP's "Pretorian guard."

Padre Pio was, however, a favorite of JPII, who not only oversaw his canonization but made Pio's memorial obligatory for every church--in other words, celebrating his feast day is not optional. I guess his vote counts more than J23.

The Times article originally had one howler, about one of PP's supposed spiritual gifts: "Followers of Padre Pio believe he exuded 'the odour of sanctity,' had the gift of bipolarism (being in two places at once), healed the sick and could prophesy the future." As one commenter rightly noted, that gift is bilocation. (The article is now fixed.)

Of course, PP is now elevated to the altars, along with folks like Josemaria Escriva, who also had some troubles in his past according to some. Not that I doubt either is in heaven. But it makes one wonder if the canonization process is sometimes more a testament to how easy it is to get into heaven rather than a testimony to how hard it is.

God's mercy covering a multitude of sins and all.

Blame it on the gays?

2007-10-16T09:07:00.001-05:00

In the aftermath of the Monsignor Stenico Vatican sex scandal, the now-expected commentary on homosexuality and/in the Catholic Church is now appearing. Of note is a column by Anglican (I think) priest Martin Reynolds, who lives with his partner and their family in Wales. The heart of his contention is that Stenico represents the double-edged character of the Christianity/homosexuality coin: Gay people (men in particular) are both persecuted and persecutor. A selection from his column in the UK New Statesman:

"The Anglican family of Churches is tottering on its foundations over the place of lesbian and gay people in its hierarchy, divided between those who see homosexuality as an acceptable deviation and no bar to office and those who privately might still enjoy a bonfire or two with gay people as both passive and active participants.

"For let’s be clear gay Christians have not just been the fuel for these bonfires. Homosexual priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes have been amongst the most enthusiastic to set the fires and throw on the victims as an attempt both to disguise and deny their own sexuality. Fr Tommaso’s defense that he met the young gay man "to better understand this mysterious and faraway world which, by the fault of a few people--among them some priests--is doing so much harm to the Church” may be a painful reminder to all of us of this."

I must admit that I have found some of the most violently anti-gay people in Catholicism--both lay and ordained--to at least fit the standard gay stereotypes (on which basis it is, of course, unfair to judge). But there have been no small number of anti-gay Christians who have turned out to be gay themselves, two prominent members of evangelical "ministry" Exodus International (a group that allegedly makes gay people straight in the name of Jesus) being a case in point. (They re-embraced their homosexuality and partnered up.)

With the conflict over homosexuality in the church that complex, no wonder homosexuality has become of late what Rev. Reynolds calls a "first order" truth of Christianity rather than the "third order" issue it probably really is in the grand scheme.

Set-up in the Holy See?

2007-10-15T09:24:00.000-05:00

One thing guaranteed to give a story legs: Gay sex in the Vatican. Great, just what the Holy Father needs.

Monsignor Tommaso Stenico, a section head at the Vatican Congregation for Clergy, is the cleric involved, the "victim" of a journalistic sting in which a "young man" secretly filmed Stenico in his office propositioning said "young man" for sex. Reports are a little varied--some say the priest gave an interview in his office with his face and voice disguised, others just that he was secretly filmed. You can read the Guardian's most recent update here. Either way, Stenico has now been suspended from his duties.

This is, of course, another silly distraction, one which the Vatican leaves itself open to by being so vociferous in its opposition to any legal recognition of same-sex couples (as it recently did in Italy) and its absolute condemnation of sex between people of the same gender. Any indiscretion or outright hypocrisy by any individual priest is bound to be news, and Stenico's claim that he was investigating a satanist plot to ensnare priests just makes the whole thing more lurid.

This story is no good for gay folks either. Every time there is another Larry Craig or Monsignor Stenico it just reinforces the following stereotypes: gays are trying to convert your children (it was a young man, after all); gays are so perverse and desperate that they have sex in public restrooms; gay sex is super weird—they’re all into S and M, you know (the Guardian made sure we all know that it was "sado-masochistic sex" Father was looking for).

Sanity, please.

Once-in-history chance?

2007-10-12T08:52:00.000-05:00

A group of 139 Muslim scholars and clerics has issued an open letter to Pope Benedict and other Christian leaders inviting Christians and Muslims to dialog. Issued to coincide with the festival at the end of Ramadan, "A Common Word between Us and You" argues: "Muslims and Christians together make up well over half of the world's population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world. The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians," according to the U.K. Guardian.

The question for Catholics is how the pope will respond. There is another significant anniversary coming up, that of B16's Regensburg speech that deeply offended many Muslims because of his association of Islam with violence. This letter is an olive branch, and the Holy Father would do well to hang on. And it is significant for the number of its Muslim signatories: Islam has no centralized authority, but the dozens of scholars and muftis have tens of millions of followers.

Wouldn't it be great if the Vatican convened an ecumenical (all Christians) and inter-religious (including not only Christians and Muslims, but Jews and other interested religious parties as well) for a peace conference? Such an effort may work wonders for the inter-religious effort, as well as counter the "new atheist" (Hitchens, Dawkins, and the rest) claim that religion sows only dissension.

With news coverage like this...

2007-10-10T13:45:00.000-05:00

Who needs enemies? Check out this headline:

Pope attacks Iran at Jewish Congress

This, from the U.K. Times Online, has got to be one of their dumbest, and most incendiary, headlines in a while. Perfect timing, too, since the we're getting close to the anniversary of the pope's ill-timed and ill-phrased remarks on Islam given at Regensburg, Germany during the first year of his pontificate. You'd think the Times was trying to stir up trouble.

Anyone who cares to read the actual story will discover the pope was actually expressing support for Judaism to members of the World Jewish Congress. Even Benedict's quote was third-hand, coming from Maram Stern, secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, who reported that the pope had "recognised the question of Iran as an issue of big concern for him." "Issue of big concern"--that hardly sounds like a direct quote from Benedict (though I don't doubt that the pope expressed support for Israel and for Jews in general).

I imagine, however, that the pope was just as concerned about the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe and especially with Polish priest Father Tadeusz Rydzyk, who heads a Catholic media empire in Poland and has been accused of blatant anti-Semitism. But to read the Times, you'd think the pope had nukes of his own trained on Tehran.

I'm often critical of B16, but I also feel sorry for him sometimes. He generally says carefully nuanced things--whether you agree with him or not--which get translated by all kinds of people into five-word headlines that hardly capture his intent.

Ready for married priests?

2007-10-09T16:20:00.001-05:00

If the alternative is a pastor who allegedly fathers a child out of wedlock with a separated woman and then does a survey about whether or not he should stay, you might be!

According to Agence France-Presse, Don Sante Sguotti, a priest of the Padua, Italy diocese, has been relieved of his pastoral duties after his affair with a parishioner came to light. When the news first surfaced six months ago, Sguotti held a parish referendum, in which only 16 of 200 respondents said he should resign. Young people in the town have taken to wearing T-shirts that say "We are all children of Don Sante." So incensed at his replacement were parishioners that only four women showed up to Mass last Sunday, the first presided at by Sguotti's replacement.

Makes a nice, happily married man look like your dream priest, doesn't it?

Do you know your doc's faith?

2007-10-09T16:07:00.000-05:00

Some Catholics have made big deals of late about the rights of Catholic pharmacists, for example, to refuse to fill a birth control pill prescription on religious grounds. With that--and my post on the Connecticut bishops' decision to permit Plan B in Catholic hospitals for victims of rape--in mind, I'm wondering how supporters of the "right to refuse" folks might feel about the following news story, in the U.K. Times Online:

According to a study by two British medical societies, a (very) few Muslim medical students have refused, on religious grounds, to study the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases or alcohol-related illnesses because the behavior that may lead to those conditions is contrary to Islam. One student even failed his licensing exam because he refused, on religious grounds, to give a standard medical exam to a female patient.

So, folks, are we talking apples and apples here, or apples and oranges? Are medical professionals obliged to provide the professional "standard of care" regardless of their personal religious beliefs? The Muslim professional society of doctors and dentists in the UK is not supporting these Muslim medical students, by the way, though the CT bishops are still seeking an exemption from the state law that would require Plan B.

I think this is a particular issue for women; many of the "refusals" are around women's reproductive health, and you can expect more when the vaccine for the virus that causes some cervical cancers becomes more widely available and the pressure increases to have pre-adolescent girls vaccinated.

It's starting earlier this time

2007-10-04T10:22:00.001-05:00

Such was Rudolph Giuliani's response to St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke's statement that Burke would deny Giuliani Communion should the former NY mayor present himself. Giuliani is facing pressure from Christian conservatives and Catholics for his support of abortion rights. I don't know what positive action Giuliani has ever taken to make abortion available though. Can you be denied Communion for thinking something?

Burke--who gets points at least for applying his no-Communion rule to both the GOP and Democrats--said, however, that the death penalty and preemptive war were different. "It's a little more complicated in that case," he told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. In the abortion case, however, Burke says Giuliani is "publicly sinning." I think a preemptive war is a pretty public sin. The death penalty is committed in public, too.

Though I'm no fan of Giuliani myself, I think Burke is wrong on canonical grounds. A penalty like exclusion from Communion has a pretty high bar--directly procuring an actual abortion, or directly aiding the procurement of an actual one--a real act, not just a thought, or a political speech.

This counts as crazy

2007-10-02T12:12:00.000-05:00

The archbishop of Maputo, Mozambique, Francisco Chimoio, has accused European condom manufacturers of deliberately infecting condoms with HIV "in order to finish quickly the African people," according to the Guardian. About 1 in 6 of Mozambique's 19 million people are infected with HIV.

And I thought some the U.S. bishops were bad. Who picked this guy?

Chimoio is just another, if over the top, example of how the Catholic Church is on the wrong side of the HIV prevention debate. We can insist people behave like angels all we want, but that's no excuse for openly opposing an effective prevention strategy on a continent that already has 40 million orphaned children because of HIV and AIDS. The church's teaching on condom use is not so important that it trumps the need to prevent the spread of a pandemic. And suggesting a deliberate genocide against Africans is hardly the way to attack the real threat that is infecting 500 people in Mozambique every day.

Bishops go to Plan B

2007-09-28T10:56:00.000-05:00

Connecticut's Catholic bishops have acquiesced to a new law requiring hospitals to provide so-called "Plan B" emergency contraception to women who have been raped, reports the Associated Press. Plan B is a double-strength birth control pill that prevents ovulation and reduces the possibility of pregnancy by 89 percent. It has no effect on women who are already pregnant.

Some prolife advocates have opposed the move, since there is a very small chance that an already-fertilized ovum would fail to implant. The issue is evidently whether an ovulation test should be given before Plan B.

I think the bishops made the right move here. There is a good moral argument for Plan B in this situation, and on top of that that, failure to permit Plan B in cases of rape would appear callous to the needs of victimized women--in my humble opinion only, of course.

The blogger at American Papist disagrees with me, and you can find his/her reasons here. While I'm sensitive to the argument about life beginning at conception, the very tiny chance (practically undocumented) that a fertilized ovum won't implant--which happens naturally about 20 million times a year as it is--doesn't outweigh the a violated woman's right to prevent conception. She should at least be given the option, the sooner the better.

Benny gets a B

2007-09-28T10:55:00.000-05:00

From American Catholics in general that is, though not from me. A new poll from the Pew Forum shows Pope Benedict with an 86 percent approval rating among Catholics, though only 38 percent said he was doing a good job on the ecumenical front. Forty-six percent said his efforts were fair or poor, according to Catholic Online. The snarkily-though-cleverly-titled pro-Benedict blog "The Cafeteria Is Closed" has a full breakdown.

If I was asked, I'd give him poor marks on relations so far with Islam; he still hasn't overcome the Regensburg stumble as far as I'm concerned. And I'm not happy with the broad restoration of the Latin liturgy; though I have no huge problem with making it available, I don't think that decision should be left up to individual priests. And the reiteration of Dominus Iesus--with its insistence on the "gravely deficient" situation of other religions and churches--doesn't win points for me either. I am also a little weary of the constant tirades against gay marriage, but that's just me.

More positively, moves to resolve the situation of Chinese Catholics--with their two hierarchies, etc.--seem like positive steps. And relations with the Orthodox are starting to improve again. And I can't fault B16 for his new emphasis on the environment.

So I guess I give the Benedictine administration a solid C, maybe a C-. Anyone want to disagree?

2007-09-27T10:19:00.000-05:00

One has to wonder just how interested Anglican Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola, is in mending ties with the U.S. Episcopal Church over the participation of gay and lesbian people in the life of the Episcopal Church. Before the ink could dry on the ECUSA's statement about the consecration of gay, partnered bishops and the blessing of same-sex unions, Akinola was quick to denounce what he saw as the Episcopal Church's lack of "repentance," according to the Associated Press.

This is a tough situation, and ECUSA may have jumped the gun in approving the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire before the wider Anglican Communion was ready for a conversation about homosexuality--although I think they were right on theological grounds. Even if ECUSA didn't properly take into account Robinson's consecration would have on the rest of the Communion, Akinola is openly homophobic, going so far as to support laws in Nigeria that would make homosexual activity and even identifying as a gay or lesbian person a civil crime punishable by imprisonment. While ECUSA may have prematurely stretched the bonds of charity in its full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in its ecclesial life, Akinola has certainly violated charity's basic demands in his vociferous attacks on gay and lesbian people, many of whom are, after all, baptized members of the people of God.

In the end, I'd rather be guilty of too much charity than too little. And I think its time for the ECUSA's bishops and people to issue a little "fraternal correction" of their own on this matter. As for the question of gay bishops, a partnered lesbian is on the slate of candidates for the Chicago see. Should be interesting...

Papal feeding tubes

2007-09-27T10:00:00.001-05:00

Just as the Vatican issues an instruction saying that artificial nutrition and hydration are required as "ordinary means" for patients in vegetative states, an Italian doctor claims that John Paul II was "euthanized." According to the Associated Press, the Vatican is denying the claims of Dr. Lina Pavanelli that Pope John Paul II was effectively euthanized because he received only a nasal feeding tube rather than a stomach feeding tube, which would have prolonged his life further. Pavanelli based her opinion on her own medical knowledge and media reports.

Pavanelli gets the unwarranted extrapolation award from me for a bizarro attempt at moral evaluation, but it highlights how rigid and the church's end-of-life guidance is getting. Like it or not, moral decisions in such circumstances are by necessity circumstantial, which is why the church's guidance until recently directed Catholics and their counselors to consider the relative costs and benefits (not just the economic ones) of certain medical interventions. Of what value could a stomach feeding tube have had for a man in the late stages of terminal Parkinson's disease. None, of course, and so that intervention was not obligatory.

There is no moral obligations to flog a human body nearing death with every medical intervention to stave off death's inevitable arrival. Catholic teaching is correct to defend access to medical care for every human being, including those in vegetative states if they ask for it--and I think those who ask for it should be given feeding tubes and the rest if they ask it. But I for one do not want my body sustained beyond all hope of recovery.

Time to take a look at those advanced directives.

Separation of papal powers?

2007-09-06T17:13:00.001-05:00

The Catholic Church in Australia got a surprise in a book length critique of Catholicism--from one of the country's most well-respected Catholic bishops. According to The Tablet, Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, retired auxiliary bishop of Sydney, criticized Pope John Paul II for inadequately responding to the sex abuse crisis in Australia and further argued for a "constitutional papacy" that limits the exercise of the papal office and defines the powers of the college of bishops. Some quotes found in the Tablet:

"Papal power has gone too far and there are quite inadequate limits on its exercise."

"We [the bishops] were not asked to vote before the publication of the document on the ordination of women, not even when the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI] spoke of this teaching as ‘infallible', with the Pope [John Paul II] doing nothing to contradict him. If bishops are not asked their opinions even when the word ‘infallible' is in the air, the College of Bishops would seem to have no practical importance in the Church, and the statement of the Second Vatican Council that the college is a co-holder of supreme power would seem to have no practical importance."

As Robinson probably knows because he is a canonist, Paul VI did propose a constitution or basic law for the church when the Code of Canon Law was being revised. John Paul II jettisoned that idea, but perhaps it's time for a rethink. Why not have a "constitution" for the church, even a separation of powers? Why should executive, judicial, and legislative powers rest in the hands of one person?

Ponies to pope: Pay up!

2007-08-28T11:46:00.001-05:00

A battle has been brewing between the pope and the ponies at Australia's Randwick racecourse, where Benedict XVI is to celebrate World Youth Day with about 500,000 young people next summer. Originally, local church officials had said the racecourse would be out of action for 10 weeks; now they say it will be just three days, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, and they aren't paying for anything beyond that.

Trainers, with their 700 horses and the support staff that go with them, are balking, saying the church is offering insufficient compensation and no alternative sites for training and housing. "Possession is nine-tenths of the law. If there is no one paying for the floats and no one willing to look at compensation or exercise responsibility, we'll look after our responsibilities and wish them well," said trainer's association president Anthony Cummings.

Call out the Swiss Guard?

Of course--and I realize this is going to be a very unpopular opinion--I've never really understood the purpose of gathering a million kids to "see" the pope. It seems overly expensive and even a little dangerous. Does it really have lasting benefit?

I know I'm going to get lacquered for this one. How can I be against WYD? Have it at.

Reading Mother's diary

2007-08-27T15:07:00.000-05:00

Those who lament that nothing is sacred nowadays have new ammunition with publication of Mother Teresa's private letters, in which she admits, according to a story in the Chicago Sun-Times (and elsewhere), that she suffered a crisis of faith for much of her adult life. What's shocking is not the fact that she, like many great saints, suffered the "dark night of the soul," but that the writings that she asked to be destroyed after her death weren't.

Since when did the seal of Confession expire with death? This is really outrageous. And someone's probably making a pretty penny on it, too.

As for Mother Teresa, who can doubt her sanctity now? Despite getting almost no consolation in prayer, she soldiered on, practicing faith even when she didn't "feel" it anymore.

Agnostic my foot. She was the real deal, and her example points out the difference between faith and certainty.

Does anyone out there find her less inspiring now?

On not doing your homework

2007-08-09T10:07:00.001-05:00

In a misbegotten attempt to highlight the interreligious character of Jewish convert to Catholicism and former archbishop of Paris Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger's funeral, the International Herald Tribune sports this headline:

"Jewish kaddish, Catholic psalms at Notre Dame for funeral of Jewish-born French cardinal"

"Catholic" psalms, eh? Way to do your research, Associated Press.

Married priests now?

2007-08-09T08:56:00.000-05:00

The Catholic churches in Africa, or at least their leaders, are often considered more Roman than the Romans, but a new movement for married priests founded by Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo seems to be gaining traction, according to an op-ed piece in the Times of Zambia. A number of legally married priests in Zambia are now ministering openly in association with Married Priests Now, Milingo's movement, which is funded by (of all people) the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

It would be ironic indeed if the church of the developing world--thought by many to be the future of traditional Catholicism--is the place that finally does in mandatory celibacy. But their clergy shortage is most extreme, so it makes sense that wider use of married priests would begin in places like Africa and Latin America.

Milingo is, I'll grant, a little nutty, but who knows how this might turn out? And really, would the vast majority of Catholics really care if their priests were married, as long as they were competent, compassionate ministers? Would you?

Come out or stay in?

2007-08-08T10:32:00.000-05:00

In another dust-up over clerical sexuality, dozens of gay and lesbian Evangelical Lutheran clergy and seminarians revealed their sexuality yesterday at the biennial convention in Chicago. At issue is whether same-sex oriented clergy must remain celibate. A third of the ELCA's 65 synods (regional districts) have supported dropping the celibacy requirement, though the convention as a whole reaffirmed it in 2005, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. A number of ELCA bishops permit clergy in relationships to continue serving, though the bishops could face disciplinary action themselves.

The question the Lutherans have to ask themselves, of course, is: Does it really matter? Is sex and sexuality really the determining factor when evaluating a pastor or candidate for ministry?

Catholics don't get to dodge that one either. And I know what my answer is. We've been ably served by gay men and women for generations, whether we've known it or not. It's time to start acknowledging it.

Lutheran CORE, which opposes any change in policy, summarizes its position on the Lutheran Churches of the Common Confession blog:

"Ultimately, we do not believe we have the right as Christians to vote on whether or not we will accept the clear teachings of Holy Scripture. Especially when an overwhelming majority of Christians through the ages and across the world have understood the texts of the Bible regarding same-sex relationships in their plain sense, we have to say, "our conscience is captive to the Word of God; unless we are convinced by clear Scripture and evident reason therefrom, we cannot and will not recant."

I imagine all the women of CORE are veiled at services, and none of them presume to teach men. All part of the "plain sense" of scripture, you know...

More "anti-Catholicism"

2007-08-08T10:31:00.001-05:00

Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) is complaining loudly that fellow Republican Mike Huckabee allowed a supporter to start an anti-Catholic "whisper campaign" against Brownback because he is Catholic. (Brownback crossed the Tiber from Methodism in 2002.)

"I know Senator Brownback converted to Roman Catholicism in 2002," Rev. Tim Rude, pastor of Walnut Creek Community Church, wrote in the e-mail, according to the Associated Press. "Frankly, as a recovering Catholic myself, that is all I need to know about his discernment when compared to the governor's."

Brownback demanded an apology from Huckabee, an ordained Baptist pastor, but the Rev. Huck did not offer one. Rude was a little less, well, rude, and acknowledged he chose his words poorly.

Of course, if that's what passes for anti-Catholicism these days, we're really doing great, folks. That is at least the most oblique insult I could imagine. "Recovering Catholic"--please, we say that stuff all the time!

Remember, really anti-Catholic people used to have whole political parties, so let's not get too worked up.

More sex abuse troubles in SoCal

2007-08-08T10:29:00.000-05:00

Not L.A. this time, though. The Diocese of San Diego, currently in bankruptcy proceedings, just got an earful from the judge for hiding money--two parishes even had "secret accounts." The bankruptcy judge, having ordered a first-of-its-kind outside review of diocesan finances, now has to decide whether the deception was intentional, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. If she determines it was, she could put all the diocesan finances in the hands of a trustee. (Note to other dioceses: You take your life in your hands when you throw yourself on the mercy of the civil court.) The diocese argues the problems were minor, though the total "surplus funds" add up to millions.

Of course, what the judge is most likely to find is a completely disorganized financial mess. As many have pointed out--both on the record and off--the next big scandal to come is money, and how sloppily is gets handled at many levels of church organization. This one is worth watching--but it will likely only be bad news for the people of God in San Diego.

Watch this get even messier.

Do you think he could say ths infallibly?

2007-07-25T17:08:00.000-05:00

Coming to the end of his summer holiday, Pope Benedict is emphasizing environmentalism.

"We must respect the interior laws of creation, of this Earth, to learn these laws and obey them if we want to survive," B16 said, according to MSNBC. "This obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness . . . than the desires of the moment. Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive."

Could the pope soon be exchanging white for green in his daily attire? If there's one thing you can say about B16, he's fashion forward.

Of course, I'm not a big fan of randomly invoking infallibility, but climate change is a planetary emergency--and a major moral issue.

Off with his red-hatted head?

2007-07-19T10:01:00.001-05:00

U.S. Catholic writer Bob McClory, whose article on the sex abuse crisis five years on appears in the August issue of U.S. Catholic, was on KABC radio in Los Angeles this morning talking about the eye-popping settlement of the abuse claims in that archdiocese. The host of the show called for Cardinal Mahony's resignation, but I find myself, surprisingly, disagreeing.

It may be true that Mahony deserves to be fired; he probably would be if he was the head of a school district that handled allegations of sexual abuse in the way the archdiocese did. But if we've learned anything from the resignation of former Boston Archbishop Bernard Law, it's that episcopal execution does not always equal justice. Law now manages a palace of a church in Rome and is still incredibly influential in the Curia. And the abuse victims in Boston never got the full truth from the horse's mouth.

As long as Cardinal Mahony is still in office in L.A., he will be under constant pressure for fuller disclosure of who knew what and when, which is the stated goal of many victims groups. If he leaves, he'll never have to answer another question.

A billion dollars?

2007-07-19T10:00:00.001-05:00

That shocking number is not a mistake, and that' s about the final cost of the LA archdiocese's massive settlement with almost 600 victims of sexual abuse by clergy, religious, and other church workers that was announced over the weekend and approved today. You can read the LA Times coverage here. The $1 billion is the combination of a previous $114 paid to 86 victims, a December settlement of $60 million of 45 victims, and today $660 million whopper to 508 victims. Add legal fees and incidentals, and that's about a billion dollars.

What is amazing to me is the lack of outrage on the part of LA Catholics. The cash settlement alone--$250 million in archdiocesan assets--is a tremendous burden for the people of God in LA to bear. And let us not forget, that money and property didn't just fall out of heaven. It was given to the church leadership in trust, and because of the failures of that leadership that exposed the church to liability, it is now being liquidated. That's a tragedy that demands redress, and we have yet to see the kind of reform that will bring the transparency and accountability that Catholics deserve.

Giving new meaning to "ecumenism"

2007-07-10T16:33:00.000-05:00

Speaking of mice and cookies (see previous posts), the Vatican has unloaded its second barrel against Vatican II, this time by basically restating the elements of its 2000 document Dominus Iesus in relation to other Christian communions in a new missive from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In short, the Orthodox are "wounded" because they lack a proper relationship (of submission?) with the bishop of Rome, and the Protestants aren't churches at all because they lack apostolic succession.

Two documents in two days aimed at two crucial elements of Vatican II, the liturgical reform and ecumenism. Both seemed geared toward appeasing the extreme right wing of Catholicism (and alienating the broad middle?). What's next, a document repudiating religious freedom--another complaint against Vatican II leveled by the Lefebvrites? What about the document on Judaism?

Then comes this spin from Father Augustine Di Noia, Under-Secretary for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as reported by the Washington Post:

"The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment. But, as you know, it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. That is, dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be." So just what is our "ecumenical commitment"? Repeating over and over that everyone else is wrong, and all they need to do is be just like us?

No matter what his intentions, Pope Benedict has just made incredible concessions to those who oppose Vatican II and claiming major power--reinterpreting an ecumenical council--for the bishop of Rome.

Bad news indeed.

We're being eaten by a boa constrictor

2007-07-10T16:31:00.000-05:00

If you doubted that the Society of St. Pius X would not be satisfied with a restoration of the Missal of Pius V--the actual name for the Tridentine liturgical book, not the "Missal of Blessed John XXIII," which is ridiculous spin--consider SSPX head Bernard Fellay's response, as reported by Zenit:

"Difficulties that still remain [but the SSPX] wishes that the favorable climate established by the new dispositions of the Holy See will make it possible--after the decree of excommunication which still affects its bishops has been withdrawn--to consider more serenely the disputed doctrinal issues." In other words, we haven't gotten our way yet. Just a little more... a little more ...

All this to restore communion with about 1 million Lefebvrites.

But wait, there's more. See the next post.

Liturgical revisionism

2007-07-09T12:42:00.000-05:00

I just can't pass this up, from Summorum Ponitificum, which, incidentally, the Vatican website has not made available in English:

I just can't pass this up, from Summorum Ponitificum, which, incidentally, the Vatican website has not made available in English:

"In more recent times, the Second Vatican Council expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time. Moved by this desire our predecessor, the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, approved, in 1970, reformed and partly renewed liturgical books for the Latin Church. These, translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful. John Paul II amended the third typical edition of the Roman Missal. Thus Roman Pontiffs have operated to ensure that "this kind of liturgical edifice ... should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony."[4]"

What a bunch of nonsense! Vatican II did not "express a desire"; in a near-unanimous vote, the bishops ordered a "general reform" of the liturgy. And nowhere does the phrase "respectful reverence" appear; their phrases were "full, conscious, and active," and "right and duty of the baptized." B16 makes it sound like Paul VI issued the new liturgical books on a whim.

This is an amazing piece of papalizing theology, and an amazing exercise of papal power. The repudiation of the council is not only liturgical but ecclesiological as well. Collegiality has flown right out the window.

Pope dumps Council

2007-07-09T12:40:00.000-05:00

As expected, Pope Benedict XVI has issues is motu propio (meaning "on his own initiative, and this surely is), Summorum pontificum, liberalizing the use of the pre-Vatican II liturgies for all the sacraments, save Holy Orders, it seems. The old Roman Missal is being styled the "Missal of Blessed John XXIII," which is rich indeed, since all J23 did to the liturgy was add St. Joseph to the Roman Canon.

Though the pope insists this is not a repudiation of Vatican II, one has to wonder if the liturgical principles of "full, conscious, and active participation" as the "paramount concern" of the reform of the liturgy will be observed as the old liturgy is resurrected. Those principles were, after all, taught by an ecumenical council called by the pope. And what about the lectionary? The liturgy constitution says that the "treasures of the scriptures" should be opened for the faithful in the liturgy. Will the old lectionary also be used, which has only a single cycle of readings (epistle and gospel) and as opposed to the vastly superior three-year cycle (Old Testament, epistle, and gospel reading) of the reformed liturgy. I doubt it.

I can only echo the words of the Italian bishop Luca Brandolini as reported by the Washington Post: "A reform for which many people worked, with great sacrifice and only inspired by the desire to renew the Church, has now been canceled."

Of course, now we can only wait and see if the introduction of a second Roman rite into use will indeed bring greater unity. I doubt it, especially since Bishop Fellay of the schismatic Society of Pius X has already said that there can be no further steps to unity until Rome lifts the excommunications imposed in 1988.

What is it that they say about giving a mouse a cookie?

Living in sin?

2007-06-28T10:42:00.000-05:00

An article appearing in the June issue of US Catholic is getting surprisingly high-level responses. "A betrothal proposal," by Michael G. Lawler and Gail S. Risch of Creighton University's Center for Marriage and Family in Omaha drew a letter of disagreement to the magazine from Omaha's Archbishop Elden Curtiss. Today's Omaha World-Herald has a story on the controversy.

Another high-profile archbishop, Charles Chaput of Denver, dedicated his column in the Denver Catholic Register to what he referred to as the "bafflingly naive" approach to cohabitation Lawler and Risch suggest.

In the authors' defense, they don't approach this topic without solid research and theological reflection. They're not promoting "fornication" (which has been among the favorite words of many letter-writers), only a change to the definition, one that at least used to be good enough. In the end, they see a pastoral problem and have proposed a pastoral solution. It may be wrong, or it may not be to the liking of some, but it is at least a creative approach to a difficult issue.

And at least they have the courage to bring it up openly. It seems to me that there are a few people afraid of some grown up conversation.

A startling call for withdrawal from Iraq

2007-06-28T10:41:00.000-05:00

"Let the Iraqis kill each other, but let the occupying power get out, because they are not killing each other because they are Sunni or Shiite, but because they are with the Americans or against the Americans," said Chaldean Catholic Bishop Ibrahim N. Ibrahim, according to a story posted at Catholic Online.

Kind of shocking, but it certainly indicates how desperate even Iraqi Christians are to have the U.S. out of Iraq. A good number of Iraqi Christians are part of the Chaldean Church, which has a Catholic branch. Those Christians have suffered greatly in the violence and make up some 40 percent of Iraqis fleeing their country, though they make up only a small portion of the population.

One thing you have to say for him: He has a lot more moral authority to call for a withdrawal than any of our politicians. I'll say nothing of our own U.S. bishops, whose silence on this matter is a little shocking.

Dems come a courtin'

2007-06-28T10:40:00.000-05:00

US News and World Report has an interesting piece on how the Democrats are trying to court Catholics for 2008. Since for all practical purposes Catholics were the swing voters in 2004 (toward Bush) and 2006 (toward the Democratic Congress), everyone realizes that we are the people to have in your camp. Since Catholics account for 20 percent of voting Americans, winning big with us means winning big.

So expect a lot about abortion and gay marriage in the next 18 months from the Republicans, and a lot about health care, the war, and poverty from the Dems. (And probably less from them about abortion, although if I was a Dem seeking Catholic votes, I'd ask anyone who voted for the GOP because of abortion to show me what they'd actually gotten for it!)

How's your Latin?

2007-06-28T10:37:00.000-05:00

Another raft of stories on the triumphal return of Tridentine liturgy is out today. All the stories claim the document has already been signed and will probably be released before the pope goes on vacation July 9.

All I can say is: For those who thought the liturgy was bad now, wait until you see some priest trying to pronounce Latin. I guess we'll find out which kind people like better.

This is a big mistake. Period. It's a usurpation of the local bishop's authority over the liturgy in his diocese. And there is hardly any great pastoral need being left unfulfilled. Maybe the document will spontaneously burst into flame.

Or maybe we'll find out the Tridentine liturgy is not as popular as some think it is.

Making your own rules

2007-06-26T09:27:00.000-05:00

Pope Benedict has changed the rules for the election of the next pope, restoring the requirement of a two-thirds majority for election according to the Associated Press. Pope John Paul II's change to election rules allowed for a simple majority to elect a new pope after several days of balloting.

Changing these rules is nothing new--every modern pope has done it at some point in his career. B16's change corrects a problem with JPII's in that it guarantees a compromise candidate. Many feared under JPII's rules, the strong conservative camp would hold out for one of their own. They probably thought they had one in Ratzinger, but he's proving to be a little bit harder to pin down.

Of course, it's a bit odd that the pope can establish the rules for electing their successors. Glad our politicians can't do that!

Pope gets "frank" with PM

2007-06-26T09:25:00.000-05:00

Tony Blair's last foreign trip as head of government was no cakewalk. Rather than embrace the man most sources say will soon be a Catholic, Pope Benedict evidently had hard words for Blair, though no one's sure what they may have been about. One possibility is the Iraq war and Britain's involvement in it. Or perhaps it is the Labor government's recent laws funding embryonic stem cell research and a new law prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians in matters of adoption.

What we do know is that the Vatican's press office, according a story on the U.K.'s Guardian website, that the PM and the pope had a "frank exchange of views," which is diplo-speak for "they had an argument." Ouch--would love to have been a fly on the wall in that room. What's the pope like when he's "frank"?

One wonders what we can expect with our own elections looming, especially as Giuliani gets raked over the coals for pulling the old "personally against but publicly for" position on abortion.

Do-over on interreligious dialogue

2007-06-26T09:19:00.000-05:00

As expected, Pope Benedict restored the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue yesterday, just over a year after folding into the Pontifical Council for Culture, according to the Associated Press. That move was a big mistake, and someone in the Vatican seems to have recognized it--it was hard to miss when the pope managed to irritate most of the world's billion Muslims.

Not restored, however, was Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, English-speaking expert who used to serve as president of the council. The new president is the French Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, former head of foreign affairs for the Vatican and an outspoken critic of the Iraq war. Tauran is probably good, but Fitzgerald was great--he must have some enemies still in the Vatican who want him exiled to Egypt.

Church teaching now covers EVERYTHING

2007-06-20T15:04:00.000-05:00

Sensing a major gap in church teaching, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has issued some new rules for the road, an additional 10 Commandments (in case the originals weren't enough). In addition to the expected concern for charity, good Catholic drivers should avoid "impoliteness, rude gestures, cursing, blasphemy, loss of sense of responsibility or deliberate infringement of the highway code." I'd probably have to admit to a couple of those. I wonder if they cataloged the rude gestures.

Pretty much every news service picked up the commandments, part of a longer document called "Guidelines for the Pastoral Care of the Road," which also covers issues related to homelessness and itinerant people.

But did we need a whole document? I think the Vatican could learn from the first Bush administration: Pick a single message and stick to it for a bit! Between news agencies like Zenit and Catholic World News, we're drowning in every syllable that comes from Rome--and they're not all created equal.

Brownback bad for babies?

2007-06-11T12:52:00.000-05:00

How can the most anti-abortion candidate on the Republican side be bad for the prolife movement? Here's why: At something called "the National Catholic Men's Conference" (staged by some group called St. Joseph's Covenant Keepers), he told a gathering of 500 or so men that abortion should be outlawed even in cases of rape and incest.

"Rape is terrible. Rape is awful. Is it made any better by killing an innocent child? Does it solve the problem for the woman that's been raped?" he asked, bring the crowd to its feet, according to the AP story.

Let's see: A man, telling 500 men, that a woman raped (by a man) should, by law rather than personal moral conviction, be prevented from avoiding conception or implantation (with the "morning after" pill) or terminating a pregnancy.

While it may make perfect sense from a particular moral perspective, it's a political disaster, and women especially by large majorities will reject it.

Of course, as some in the anti-abortion movement have learned, high-temperature rhetoric raises a lot of money, but in more than 30 years hasn't really made a dent in the abortion rate in this country. Advocating restrictions on already victimized women isn't going to either.

The pope who should not be saint

2007-06-07T11:57:00.000-05:00

In the Vatican's latest attempt to save Pope Pius XII from ignominy as the pope who failed to speak out against the Holocaust, Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State, has called Pius the victim of a "black legend" of "of Soviet and communist origin." (A "black legend" refers to exaggerated tales of the exploits of the Spanish conquistadores; one wonders how they could have made the real thing any more lurid. I also wonder if Bertone knows how, um, well, not politically correct that sounds in English.)

Bertone went on to refer to Pius as "righteous among the nations," a term some Jewish organizations use to refer to non-Jews who aided those fleeing the Nazis. (I'm sure that went over well. That's probably not a term Christians should be giving other.) Bertone was speaking at the release of a new book on Pius XII, rivetingly titled Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli, a Man on the Throne of Peter, according to the European Jewish Press. The book comes on the heels of a report on Pius' virtues, which has been sent to the pope as part of the process of Pius' beatification. Let us hope that it sits there for a long time, along with the promised restoration of the Tridentine liturgy.

It is an incredible puzzle why so many in the Vatican are championing Pius' cause; I hardly think there is any devotion to him, and his war record is at least sketchy. At best he played it safe, and that's hardly heroic sanctity. For that reason, and for the sake of the Catholic-Jewish relationship, he ought not be beatified. (I don't know why we're in such a rush to beatify every pope of the 20th c. anyway.)

When does this guy turn 75?

2007-06-04T11:49:00.000-05:00

Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, fearless crusader against inclusive language in the Catechism and the liturgy, and now crusader against even modern English in the liturgy, has now proposed oaths of allegiance of Catholic school principals and upper-level educators. The oath would require teachers to publicly promise fidelity to church teaching on--get this--homosexuality, birth control, and women's ordination, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. Women's ordination? As if...

For goodness' sake, we have really entered the realm of the ridiculous here. None of the above are matters of faith, and solid majorities of Catholics disagree on at least on birth control, if not the other two as well. I can see expecting these teachers to actually explain the church's teaching, but an oath? And it's not like these aren't disputed questions, even among bishops!

And it's utterly ironic that, in an effort to maintain obedience, the archbishop of Sydney is going to order principals to actually disobey a teaching of Jesus; check out Matthew 5:33-37 if you want to know which one.

Bishops worth listening to

2007-06-04T11:43:00.000-05:00

The presidents of seven of the Catholic bishops' conferences of the G8 have sent a joint letter to the annual confab of rich nations in Germany, encouraging the leaders of the eight major industrialized nations to "take bold action on global poverty, health care, climate change, and peace and security, [and] work towards greater access to quality education for all," according to Catholic Online. Conference presidents from Canada, Germany, the U.K., France, Japan, Russia, and the U.S. all signed the letter; the president of the Italian bishops' conference does not seemed to have signed.

This is the kind of leadership we should be getting out of our conferences; it would be even better if they all showed up to lobby in whatever way they can. How about a fast in front of the meeting space for justice and peace? Why not invite leaders from other religious traditions to join them?

And it's especially nice to see Catholic bishops offering a comprehensive vision of social justice rather than a now-predictable harangue from certain quarters about gay marriage and abortion. For the latter, you can check out in the U.K. Guardian the latest from Scotland's Cardinal Keith O'Brien, whose rhetoric is only bound to drive folks away from a sensible political settlement on the issue of abortion.

Ain't separation great?

2007-05-31T13:14:00.000-05:00

"She cannot at her own whim simply enter or leave her religion." So ruled the Malaysian judge who refused Lina Joy, a Catholic convert from Islam, permission to change her religious affiliation on her government ID card. Instead the judge told her she must go to the Islamic law, or Sharia, court and declare herself an apostate, which is likely to get her sent to a "rehabilitation center," according to the New York Times. Conversion to Christianity is illegal under Islamic law. In Muslim-majority Malaysia Muslims must use Shariah courts for certain matters; everyone else uses the civil courts.

There are loads of issues here, from the imperialism that often accompanied Christianity to the ever-escalating "war of civilizations" that some insist on fanning. But I think one thing that all should be able to agree upon is the freedom to choose and practice one's religion. Clearly, some Muslims in Malaysia disagree, and quite frankly there are plenty of American Christians who want to enforce "Judeo-Christianity" here, with the Ten Commandments posted in public buildings (especially courts) and insist that everyone at least sit through prayer in public schools. Religious coercion comes in many forms.

Let's face it: The separation of church and state is a really, really good idea, both for church and state. The case of Lina Joy is one reason why.

Extra, extra: Sex toys incompatible with Catholicism

2007-05-31T11:46:00.000-05:00

There's a new addition to the list of things employees and volunteers at Catholic churches simply cannot do: sell sex toys. No, really.

According to the AP story, Linette Servais, 50, played the organ and sang with the choir for 35 years in her parish of St. Joseph's in New Franken, Wisconsin, but was recently dismissed because she worked for Pure Romance (you'll have to find the link yourself), which sells "spa products and sex toys" at parties attended mostly by women. (Think Tupperware, only for another room of the house. I wonder if the spa products sell as well as the, um, other stuff.) Servais said that she began working with Pure Romance after suffering sexual dysfunction, the result of a bout with cancer.

"After I got over the initial shock, I prayed over this a long time," she said. "I feel that Pure Romance is my ministry." Well, canon law says people have a right to their ministry...

The pastor's reasoning was a little sketchier. "Linette is a consultant for a firm which sells products of a sexual nature that are not consistent with Church teachings," Father Dean Dombroski wrote in a letter to parishioners. (This week in "Pastor's pondering..." Well, it might make for good bulletin reading during homily time.)

Now where is that in the Catechism again? I mean, they used to call these sorts of things "marital aids," and I think the magisterium has no real objection to their use by married people--though most bishops would probably prefer they not be discussed. And the woman did have cancer. This man had better hope he doesn't have any sexual skeletons in his closet--not even a dirty magazine or a stray click of the mouse.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to add this to the overzealous prudery category. And to simple silliness. And to general lack of concern about the sexual well-being of women. And probably to a lack of awareness about issues of sexuality in general. Or the effects of cancer and treatments for it on libido and sexual function. I should stop...

Besides, it's not like she was selling the stuff in the parish basement.

Spinning the Latin liturgy

2007-05-30T11:30:00.000-05:00

John Allen is reporting in the International Herald Tribune that the Tridentine Latin Mass is on its way back in, and soon. Indeed, there have been significant signs that the "old liturgy" would soon be designated an "extraordinary universal rite," with the "Novus Ordo" of Vatican II becoming the "ordinary universal rite." (Which means, most likely, that any priest could up and decide to celebrate in Latin any time he wants, bishop's permission or not.) Allen, seemingly the press apologist for the Vatican of late, spins this benevolently: "Though some details remain vague, one point seems all too clear: When the decision officially comes down, its importance will be hyped beyond all recognition, because doing so serves the purposes of both conservatives and liberals within the church, as well as the press." Allen goes on to stake out his typical middle ground, pedantically explaining why this is a victory neither for the right nor the left.

I beg to differ. The restoration of a rite that garnered only three affirmative votes at the Council, compared with more than 2,000 in favor of reform, is nothing less than a repudiation of Vatican II, and a capital act of hubris on the part of the pope. No decision of this pastoral magnitude should be made on one's own, whether one is the bishop of Rome or not. The groups who have been clamoring for this restoration are small indeed, and the Tridentine liturgy is widely available in many places. There is no pastoral need to elevate it in this way. The "need" is merely ideological.

Unfortunately, not only will it probably happen--despite the strenuous efforts of many European bishops to stop it--but simultaneously the English vernacular liturgy will soon be dealt another crushing blow with the introduction of new, painfully archaic, and highly Latinized translations. Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie has labored long and hard to stop this train wreck, most recently in America magazine, but he, and the rest of us, are likely soon to be run over by it.

So sorry, John, I couldn't disagree more.

From red Guccis to flip-flops

2007-05-29T18:17:00.000-05:00

In kind of a big deal, the Vatican is restoring its Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, which was folded into the Pontifical Council for Culture back in 2006, according to the International Herald Tribune. At the time, its terrific Muslim expert, the English Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, was sent packing as the papal envoy to Egypt and the Arab League, a move some saw as a demotion (and a rebuke?). Many commentators (this one included) judged the change as a huge mistake--a sign that the Vatican was going to try a hard line with world Islam--and it seems the Vatican has seen the light. No word yet on whether Fitzgerald will make a triumphant return to the Curia, but in light of the pope's still-delicate relationship with Islam, let's cross our fingers.

Good thing B16 doesn't have to face reelection. We'll never forget how that flip-flopping thing stuck to another Catholic. But let's hope he sticks to the Guccis for his actual footwear. It is nice to know, however, that at least the papal administration can admit a mistake, unlike some others I could mention.

Anti-Catholic "bigotry"? Puh-leaze

2007-04-27T11:00:00.000-05:00

Though the last post may draw little comment, maybe this one will. A Philadelphia Inquirer cartoon has drawn blood from those who claim a great anti-Catholic conspiracy (for an example, click here). Few have failed to note that the five-vote majority that upheld partial-birth abortion ban was made up of the court's five Catholics. And, surprise, some are suggesting that it was Catholic morality rather than legal logic that won the day.

That's hardly anti-Catholic bigotry, anymore than pointing out the influence evangelicals have in the current administration is anti-evangelical bigotry. There may be truth in both critiques. I don't doubt that at least some of those five were looking for a legal argument that might allow them uphold the ban. I don't see anything wrong with that, so long as the legal reasoning itself was sound. (That I'll leave to the jurists to decide, but for all the victory banner-waving among pro-lifers, this decision will not prevent a single abortion. Not one.)

But cut the whining! If we want Catholicism in the public square, that means Catholic people and ideas have to take their lumps like everyone else in the media. Roman Catholicism is by far the largest denominational group in the U.S. at about 70 million, nearly as many as the 75 or so million evangelicals of various denominations. Catholics and evangelicals voting together is a force to be reckoned with. We're hardly an oppressed minority. And there are people who have legitimate fears about what that kind of political power might mean for actual minorities. Gays and lesbians, for example, continue to feel the sharp side of Catholic politicians' tongues (Sen. Brownback, anyone?). And Catholic schools and other institutions continue to clamor for public dollars. And that's not to mention the majority of people, like it or not, who think that women should have access to abortion, especially early in pregnancy.

Physicist and prophet

2007-04-27T10:58:00.000-05:00

After being a really bad blogger for the past week--I've got excuses but who wants to hear them?--I'm more inspired by a non-religious story: Physicist Stephen Hawking's zero-g flight yesterday in Florida. Though almost completely physically incapacitated by Lou Gehrig's disease, his mind knows no boundaries. His zero-g trip was an encouragement to humanity to keep heading spaceward.

Seems a lot more interesting than fighting over the dwindling resources of our poor planet.

A hard right from Ratzinger?

2007-04-17T12:34:00.000-05:00

An Associated Press commentary is alleging that Pope B16 is starting the church on a new rightward course as the third year of his papacy opens up. Citing his strong opposition to any recognition for unmarried couples in Italy, his refusal to relax clerical celibacy, and the recent censure of liberation theologian Jon Sobrino, writer Victor Simpson argues that "Pope Benedict XVI is hardening into the kind of pontiff that liberals feared and conservatives hoped for."

Though I was not among those dancing in the streets when Ratzinger was made pope, I do have to admit to being somewhat more positive lately. It's true the Benedict hasn't budged on button issues like homosexuality and ordination, but that's hardly a surprise. No one expected him to. There is no doubt that he has disappointed many--those looking for a reform of ordination and gay and lesbian Catholics in particularly don't have much to celebrate--but he hasn't been as heavy-handed as he might have been. In fact, like John XXIII before him, I think his hands may be at least encumbered (if not tied) but the Curia that surrounds him, which is the true church body that needs reform--or outright elimination--with rare exception.

Take the notification on Jon Sobrino: Though it raises issues with Sobrino's understanding of the relationship between Jesus' divinity and humanity, it doesn't require his works to be withdrawn, doesn't explicitly discourage Catholics from reading his works, and doesn't forbid Sobrino from teaching. As a Jesuit, Sobrino could have been more strongly pressured, yet he refused to sign the notification, arguing, as many have, that the process is biased and unjust. Yet there has been no further action taken against him. Besides, there can be no doubt that the fundamental principles of liberation theology--the option for the poor, the demands of solidarity, and so forth--have been accepted by a large and growing segment of the people of God.

It may be true that many hoped for a more liberal pope, but that outcome was incredibly unlikely given that Pope John Paul II had chosen nearly all the electors--and he was no liberal. Those cardinals definitely went with a "stay the course" candidate, which many would argue is not what the church needs right now. At the same time, Benedict has already surprised many with his more pastoral papacy, and he may have something more up his cassock sleeve.

Time will tell.

Can't we all just get along?

2007-04-10T10:41:00.000-05:00

A comment from Kristin (thanks, by the way, for your frequent and thoughtful comments) deserves, well, comment:

"Did you read Fr. Ronald Rolheiser's (your colleague over at US Catholic) article "Knock it off" regarding the vices and virtues of both liberal and conservative Catholics. I found it rather interesting---(I blogged on it if you want to read my complete thoughts). Was wondering your thoughts: Do you think there is a way liberals and conservatives can find common ground?" You will find another interesting post on the same interview here.

First off, everyone should check out Kristin's great post on the topic. Just a note of clarification, though: Father Ron Rohlheiser, OMI, isn't on the staff of U.S. Catholic but was just interviewed by the magazine. He's actually president of the Oblate School of Theology in San Antonio, Texas, and a syndicated columnist whose articles appear in quite a few diocesan newspapers. At the end of the interview you'll find two columns, "Three things for liberals to ponder" and "Three things for conservatives to ponder," which will give you a flavor for his writing.

My own response, as someone who approaches these issues from the left as it were, is simply that not only can conservatives and liberals find common ground, but that we must, and that there is a lot at stake if we don't. The weight of the world, and not just in the West, is leaning hard against the gospel. Consumer culture is incredibly powerful, and I think both liberal and conservative Catholics share the conviction that there's more to life than buying and selling, than youth and beauty, and, more importantly, that the gospel has the power to transform the world.

In fact, on the issues I would call "matters of faith"--the Creed, the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus, the sacraments, the divine institution of the church, the canon of scripture, the role of Mary and the saints, the church's moral teaching in general (granting some areas of dispute) including its social teaching, the many forms of Catholic spirituality, the list goes on--there is not only general agreement but unanimity. The issue is usually a matter of emphasis.

As for those "disputed questions," my only point has been, and continues to be, that there have always been issues of dispute, that the church's understanding of revelation can and does develop and change, and that dispute, disagreement, and even dissent are part of that process. As a rule, I don't disagree that many "conservative" positions are legitimate positions within the Catholic tradition, only that they are not the only legitimate positions possible within the Catholic tradition.

One question I think all of us--liberal and conservative--might ask ourselves about our own "issues": Does my faith stand or fall on issues that aren't central to Catholicism?

Crown prince of the church?

2007-04-04T10:10:00.000-05:00

Pope B16 just named Bertone as camerlengo--the guy who takes care of all the papal funeral arrangements, according to the International Herald Tribune. First the pope names Bertone Secretary of State, and now this: Is someone already laying the groundwork for his predecessor? Let's hope not.

Of course, papal conclaves have proven resistant to papal planning--except for this last one? Still, it is widely claimed that Bertone was the real theological hammer at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, where he was secretary under then-Cardinal Ratzinger, a claim I find a little hard to believe, though it's true that Papa Ratzi has so far largely disappointed the most conservative Catholics. If Bertone was the hammer, Ratzinger was certainly the one driving the nails. I'd bet Bertone would probably be even more theologically conservative than the current pope. Of course, I'm the one who picked this rather grim-looking picture, so don't go by the visuals.

Of course, I think Papa Ratzi has at least another 10 years in him--a little to early yet for papal prognostication.

Vicar of Christ on Christ

2007-04-04T10:08:00.000-05:00

April 16 will see the Italian release of the pope's long-promised volume on Jesus. Sneak peaks of Jesus of Nazareth, to be eventually published in English by Doubleday, perhaps surprisingly reveals some social justice themes. According to ABC News Benedict is especially critical of Western colonialism, which "plundered and sacked" Africa and stripped its people of their traditional culture and values. Wish he could recognize liberation theology as a legitimate theological response to that injustice...

Looks like it may be worth the read. Wish they could have come up with a better cover though. I mean really, does every papal book have to feature gold and white on the cover?

Talk about insulting God

2007-04-03T12:54:00.000-05:00

Since Bill Donohue of the Catholic League was so immensely successful at preventing "My Sweet Lord," aka Chocolate Jesus, from showing up in a New York art gallery, I'd like to suggest two other targets.

The first is the 16th (!!!) and allegedly final installment of the Left Behind series, which has got to be the most verbose insult to God ever perpetrated by any human being, believer or non-believer. Left Behind authors and evangelicals Timothy LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins claim to have based their thousands of pages on the Book of Revelation (which has only 20 or so chapters), though I think most of the verbiage is the product of a disturbingly punitive and violent religious imagination. In the 15th book, Glorious Appearing, after years of the usual plagues, Jesus finally shows up looking like Jesse Ventura in full wrestling drag to drown the army of the Antichrist in rivers of their own blood (and their horses blood); he evidently didn't finish the job though, because this final book, Kingdom Come, features ongoing battles between the forces of Satan and the Tribulation Force--the good guys who didn't get Raptured out but made up for it by becoming terrorists for Jesus. Really. You can read all about it in this LA Times piece.

Dudes, have you ever heard of metaphor? Unfortunately, there's something like 40 million copies of the series in print, which means we'll never get rid of them. Burning them, which as a rule I'm against, would only contribute to global warming.

Second, the new Hilary Swank flick, The Reaping, tries to do visually what Left Behind does in clunky prose, except with the Exodus plagues. Once again, the Great Heavenly Punisher turns rivers to blood, plagues a town with locusts, kills the firstborn etc., as our heroine tries to figure out what she's supposed to do to turn Him off. Either that, or a demon girl is doing it.

Both in time for Easter. And I'm sure those publicists actually knew that it was Easter.

Now, you've got to feel bad for God in all this. How would you like it if someone kept making movies about you, only loosely based on discredited interpretations of ancient texts, depicting you as a bloodthirsty monster, hungry to punish wayward humans with grotesque and bizarre natural phenomena?

Who will speak up for God? Or deep down do we really think that's how God is? I think that's what scares me the most.

Really offending my Catholic sensibilities

2007-03-31T09:53:00.000-05:00

For those who wonder why I like to take shots at Bill Donohue and people like them, it's simply this: More often than not he (along with the media who gives him so much play) makes us all--and our Catholic faith--look petty and irrelevant. While Donohue is foaming at the mouth over a piece of art that few will ever see, much less comment intelligently upon, fresh allegations of torture constantly crop up from Guantanamo and elsewhere. Whether those allegations have merit or not, there is no denying that holding people outdoors in cages without charges is a violation of their human rights. Yet I don't hear Bill Donohue or even many bishops for that matter rising in outrage, denouncing this as an extreme violation of "Catholic sensibilities"--you know, the sensibilities that recognize in every human person the image of God, who insist that every human life is of infinite worth.

Perhaps the world would be more willing to listen if we weren't wasting our time on irrelevancies like chocolate Jesuses. Perhaps if we were more robust in our defense of the human dignity of those labeled "terrorists"--whether they're guilty or not--our words on behalf of the unborn, the disabled, the terminally ill, might have more credibility.

200 pounds of spare chocolate

2007-03-30T14:55:00.000-05:00

According to a just-released statement, the Roger Smith Hotel has canceled the appearance of "My Sweet Lord"--a.k.a. Chocolate Jesus.

Crisis averted--until he shows up in some other gallery in New York, where there are plenty.

It's really too bad that Bill Donohue and his media conspirers have shut down any possible intelligent conversation about this piece, which may actually have a point. After all, hasn't Easter largely been reduced to a candy binge? What better way to make that point than with a chocolate Jesus--remembering that there will be many chocolate crosses (!!!) in Easter baskets all over the place! Even the fact that it's edible: Don't we Catholics believe that we "eat Jesus"--in the sacramental species--every Sunday. So don't tell me that "My Sweet Lord" is completely lacking in artistic, even theological, merit.

I think we could use a little growing up here.

And, finally, for whom does the Catholic League actually speak? I'll never understand how Bill Donohue became THE spokesman--without portfolio--for American Catholics. As if. Just goes to show what a fat checkbook and a big mouth can get away with.

What not to put in your Easter basket

2007-03-30T13:47:00.000-05:00

William Donahue of the Catholic League, who must have taken classes in public tantrum-throwing, is not surprisingly denouncing a life-size, anatomically correct sculpture of Jesus made of milk chocolate that will be appearing next week through Easter Sunday in a gallery in New York. "My Sweet Lord" by Cosimo Cavallaro, according to ABC News, apparently lacks a loincloth. Oh dear.

"This is one of the worst assaults on Christian sensibilities ever," said Donohue. "It's not just the ugliness of the portrayal, but the timing to choose Holy Week is astounding." Donahue promises to bankrupt the Roger Smith Hotel, which houses the gallery, as well. ABC refers to the Catholic League as a "watchdog group"; the dog in this case is particularly high-strung. Surely one day his head is going to explode. I mean, really, is this the worst EVER?

Not to be outdone, the gallery's creative director was shocked, just shocked, that anyone might take offense, pointing out the the sculpture's appearance during Holy Week was a coincidence (wink, wink--though I guess it's entirely possible). "We're obviously surprised by the overwhelming response and offense people have taken." Come on--surely he didn't say that with a straight face. I mean, it is Jesus in a bar of chocolate.

That said, I think the greatest sin here might be the waste of 200 pounds of high-quality milk chocolate, which offends my gastronomic sensibilities but not my Catholic ones. Besides, why can't chocolate be an appropriate medium for sculpture? Who says Jesus can only be sculpted in marble? Besides, not too long ago I think I posted about a woman who saw the Virgin Mary in chocolate drippings, though no one denounced her as impious for suggesting that Our Lady might be able to manifest herself as a naturally occurring confection. Someone call Catholic League.

As for the sculpture's full frontal "anatomical correctness," let us not forget that the Romans didn't give Jesus the courtesy of a loincloth either.

I just can't help myself

2007-03-30T13:44:00.000-05:00

Blogging as part of one's job may be more financially rewarding, but it's just not as much fun. So CtotheL is back again, though probably not quite as often. Hope all five of you are still out there somewhere....

His Holiness, the Grinch

2006-12-20T08:20:00.000-06:00

Been swamped lately, but thought I'd pass along these gems from the Holy Father, from his last audience before Christmas:

"False prophets continue to offer cheap salvation which ends up in deep delusions." (!!)

"Today, many consider God irrelevant. Even believers sometimes seek tempting but illusory shortcuts to happiness. And yet perhaps even because of this confusion humanity seeks a savior, and awaits the coming of Christ."

Cheer up, dude! It’s Christmas! As they say, you draw more flies to honey ...

Do you think we can get a vice-pope to play the happy pope?

Bishop Mussolini

2006-12-08T15:30:00.000-06:00

The Vatican has upheld, not surprisingly, Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz's decision 10 years ago to excommunicate all members of Call to Action within his diocese. Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Bishops, said the excommunication "was properly taken within your competence as pastor of that diocese," according to Catholic News Service.

"The judgment of the Holy See is that the activities of Call to Action in the course of these years are in contrast with the Catholic faith due to views and positions held which are unacceptable from a doctrinal and disciplinary standpoint. Thus to be a member of this association or to support it is irreconcilable with a coherent living of the Catholic faith."

Of course, the excommunication only applies within the Lincoln diocese, and though Re seems favorable to Bruskewitz's judgment, he has no authority to excommunicate anyone, since he's not even a diocesan bishop. Only the pope can issue an excommunication that applies outside his local church.

The real scandal here is that the church has no real public forum (a court, except for the one Re presides over) for adjudicating these kinds of disputes--of course Re would rule in favor of the bishop! The original draft of the current Code of Canon Law made provision for tribunals that would be able to deal with situations like this, but JPII stripped them before promulgating the code because he didn't think the church was "ready" for them, whatever that means.

The code contains quite a few "rights" of the faithful, including the right to associate freely, participate in the church's ministry, and make one's views known to one's pastors, which Call to Action has been exercising admirably. Of course, rights are worthless when there is no system for defending them.

If you like quizzes

2006-12-08T13:14:00.000-06:00

These will tell you if you're a heretic! Stephen Harris, a U.K. blogger, has created these quizzes that I actually find to be quite useful and nuanced--much better than those dumb Beliefnet ones, where I consistently turn out to be a Quaker. And I'm proud to report that I am Chalcedon compliant and scored as an 82% Roman Catholic--my highest denominational score.

Enjoy! http://quizfarm.com/view_user_profile.php?uid=38868

More on those two nice men

2006-12-08T12:45:00.000-06:00

A reader and I have been having a spirited debate about the two men denied Communion by the archbishop of Halifax. For his side, you'll have to check out the comments on the previous post; mine I get to move to the top. I am the blogger after all. :) And I've written quite a bit. And thanks to the commenter--I've definitely enjoyed the conversation.

The crux of our disagreement is whether the archbishop is justified in denying Communion to two men who obtained a same-sex civil marriage. My commenter says that since the two men are in a state of mortal sin, the bishop has the right to do so. I disagree.

First, only an individual person can know whether he or she is in a state of mortal sin; it is a condition of conscience rather than a checklist. The church has traditionally said certain things are mortal sins--from masturbation and missing church on a holy day of obligation to rape and murder (how's that for range?)--but it has never said an individual person is in a state of mortal sin, nor, for that matter, has it said that anyone is in hell. To do so has long been considered a failure of charity.

Technically, for someone free to marry (not already married or a committed celibate) contracting a civil (even a same-sex) marriage is not a sin. The baptized are free to exercise their legal rights within the bounds of the moral law, and the church has never said that contracting a civil marriage is a sin in itself. (Sex within a "merely" civil marriage is, of course, another matter.) It has only said that homosexual sex is sinful, and as I've pointed out, we don't know anything about the sex lives of the gentlemen in question. Just because certain church leaders have opposed laws recognizing same-sex relationships doesn't mean it is a sin to enter one. They are, after all, merely civil contracts. And there are other church leaders who have supported the creation of these legal instruments for a variety of reasons.

[My commenter pointed out the the archbishop may be making a justified "preemptive strike" to defend the church against further government intervention in marriage, for example, requiring faith communities to perform or accept same-sex marriages. My response:]

I'm not sure how using the Eucharist as a "preemptive strike" could ever be appropriate. If the archbishop has an issue with the government, the political process is the proper forum for such an action. His concerns may well be legitimate, but I don't see how making an example of these two individual men--especially since many Catholics in Canada have probably entered these arrangements--will achieve his purpose.

The canons are very clear here: Only someone who "obstinately perseveres in manifest grave sin" can be denied communion. Canons that restrict the rights of the baptized have to be interpreted narrowly and on the basis of plain language. In this case, I think "manifest" is what is key: The sin has to be public, and in this case, if they are having sex, it seems to be in private. As I said, it is not a sin to enter a civil contract, and there could be many reasons one would choose to do so, government and tax benefits being obvious ones.

I know I'll be accused of naivete here--"of course they're having sex!"--but the point is, it's not my business, and canon law also says the baptized have a right to privacy. So I'm in no position to make presumptions about their secret sins or to speculate as to the condition of their consciences, both of which violate the demands of charity.

OK, this is just mean

2006-12-07T10:06:00.000-06:00

It seems a certain Canadian bishop is implementing the new U.S. bishops guidelines for denying Communion to the people of God. In this case the archbishop of Halifax, Terrence Prendergast, ordered the pastor of Stella Maris in Meteghan, Nova Scotia to deny Communion to 69-year-olds Daniel Poirier and Jack Murphy because they were married in a civil ceremony and took an announcement out in the local newspaper. Poirier had been director of the parish choir.

"It really was a blow," Mr. Poirier said, according to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. "When we went to church there, it was like going into a warehouse; it was cold, because when everybody got up to receive communion, we had to sit down. [Forgive me for this lapse of charity, but I hope the secret sins of all those communicants were weighing heavy on their consciences as they walked past the two men. Talk about scandal!]

"One day we went and the priest talked about love and sharing and charity and all that, and I said to Jack, ‘No, I can’t take this anymore.’ So we walked out. I was almost in tears and my heart was broken."

My heart is broken, too. This is just stupid. And it gets worse when you listen to the bishop's letter to the men:

"Your state of life--after having celebrated a same-sex civil marriage and spoken about it publicly on radio and television--has established your relationship as a public scandal." [Of course, you can publicly be a spiteful cleric on radio and in television and still go to Communion.]

"This disciplinary measure is to remind you of the objective seriousness of your present state and to invite you to renounce it and to return to living according to Christ’s injunction to ‘sin no more.’ "

This "disciplinary measure"? Quite a thing to say when you are starving someone of the Body and Blood of Christ. The great scandal is that these men have been driven out of Catholicism; they now attend a United Church parish. Not to mention that I doubt the archbishop is scouring the papers for marriages between divorced Catholics who still go to church.

Sin no more, indeed. The couple reports that their priest told them the archbishop would have left them alone if they hadn't made their relationship public--it's evidently OK to accept the gifts and services of someone you know to be gay, as long as they don't tell.

Of course, this all goes back to what you think the Eucharist is. A merit badge for exemplary behavior? A reward for perfection? A mark of privilege? I for one don't think that's what Jesus had in mind. Go read the gospels--even Judas got to eat at the Last Supper.

Whether these two nice men are in a state of sin or not--and I don't think they are, at least no more than the rest of us--I hardly think anyone is in the position to point fingers. If worthiness was the test for Communion, nobody--and I mean not a single person, priests and (arch)bishops included--would get any.

Celibacy, round 2

2006-12-04T11:39:00.000-06:00

Cardinal Claudio Hummes is backing off comments he made in Brazil that the church needs to change its celibacy policy. After noting in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper that "celibates are part of Catholic history and culture," he pointed out that "the Church can reflect on the issue because celibacy is not a dogma but a form of discipline."

Today's Washington Post has him backpedaling, but just a bit: "I have no new doctrine on priestly celibacy. I just say what the doctrine of the Church says. Obviously, it is the Pope who guides the Church." Well, yes, Claudio, but the pope just made you the head of the Congregation of Clergy, and I hardly think he was unaware of your position.

You heard here first, folks: B16 will begin the relaxation of mandatory celibacy in the Western church, though I'm not sure it will be completed while he is pope. "Experiments" will be permitted in the developing world, but it will eventually spread. And I think it's probably already a done deal, and the Vatican meeting a couple of weeks ago and remarks like those Hummes made are laying the groundwork.

Actually, and those more traditional folks among my readership might be surprised by this, I wish they'd hold off on celibacy (and women's ordination for that matter) until we get a renewed theology of ministry. I'd hate to see lay ministry phased out because we suddenly have enough married priests to do the work. What I'd really like to see is a whole new way of looking at ministry, one that gets us thinking outside the "clerical box." The kind of "experiments" we need go way beyond allowing priests to marry.

Turkey worthy

2006-11-17T15:22:00.000-06:00

Inspired by the new document on who can and can't go to communion, I've decided to post guidelines for admission to Thanksgiving dinner.

"Where Pilgrims Fear to Tread": Guidelines for admission to dinner on Thanksgiving Day

1. Thanksgiving is a time of celebration for God's generous bounty. It is fitting that we gather together to pray and celebrate and give thanks for the many gifts we enjoy.

2. However, Thanksgiving is a privilege. Not everyone is entitled to a share of turkey and dressing--much less gravy--if they have not taken seriously the duties and obligations Thanksgiving entails.

3. Therefore, Thanksgiving participants should consider whether their actions warrant a place next the mashed potatoes; some should surely choose to sit next to the peas, though all should aspire to placement near the turkey.

4. Waging unjust wars, torture, unlawful imprisonment, and general government mismanagement all disqualify a person from Thanksgiving dinner.

5. Those responsible for reducing food programs, cutting budgets for poverty alleviation, and reckless pollution of the environment because it's good for business should sit quietly in the living room while others eat.

6. Ignoring homeless people, underfunding schools and health care for children, and relying on casino gambling to pay for government are all serious offenses against Thanksgiving.

7. General ignorance, failure to vote, and other forms of laziness, though serious, need not result in absolute exclusion. Places at the kiddie table should be made available, in the hope that partial participation may encourage greater commitment.

Not my best work, but unlike the bishops, I'm happy to take suggestions.

Stay of celibacy

2006-11-17T15:02:00.000-06:00

Not surprisingly, mandatory celibacy didn't get the ax after yesterday's Vatican summit, though there was an interestingly worded statement that emphasized "the value of the choice of priestly celibacy." Time magazine's deck for their headline, however, overstates things, I think: "The Pope Lays Down the Law on Celibacy, A shortage of priests has some calling for a loosening of the traditional restrictions, but Benedict makes clear it won't happen on his watch."

B16 has already said celibacy is a discipline that can be relaxed, and I think it likely he will begin what will be a long process to a married clergy shortly. First will be the readmission of priests who left to marry but whose wives have died. After that, we'll see, but I don't think the pope wants another schism on an issue like this one.

There is some fear, though, and perhaps this is why the Milingo controversy sparked the "summit," that Milingo's group could gain traction in places like Africa, where the Romans see the future of the church. Though the Catholics of the developing world may share the Roman attitude on the wedge issues--homosexuality, women's ordination, etc.--celibacy has never been terribly popular there, nor has it put down strong roots among indigenous clergy. Milingo, with his everything but the celibacy church and personal popularity in Africa, may find a receptive audience.

The many meanings of "welcoming"

2006-11-16T10:05:00.000-06:00

I'm still puzzling over the characterizations of the new document on those "inclined" to members of the same-sex as "welcoming," one voiced by both the media and the bishops themselves. Consider this from The Age: "Bishop Arthur Serratelli, of New Jersey, the chairman of the Conference of Catholic Bishops' committee on doctrine, stressed that the tone of the statement was intended to be 'positive, pastoral and welcoming,' even as it compared same-sex attractions to the temptations of 'envy, malice or greed.' "

So far, I haven't heard any gay Catholics identify this doc as welcoming, and I certainly don't think it is. So, as a service to the bishops, I'm going to attempt to outline a document that is actually welcoming yet still doesn't contain a change in teaching on this matter:

1. To our dear sisters and brothers in Christ who are gay or lesbian:

2. The Body of Christ has always had members with a same-gender sexual orientation and has no doubt been enriched by their presence among the baptized. Today as well, the church is enriched by the gifts of its gay and lesbian members who generously offer themselves in service to the gospel. Like all the baptized, lesbian and gay women and men are full members of the church, called by God into the Body of Christ.

3. Unfortunately, the relationship between the church's leadership and its gay and lesbian sons and daughters has not always been positive. Over the past decades, many lesbian and gay Catholics have felt persecuted and rejected by the language popes and bishops have used to describe same-sex sexual orientation and same-sex relationships, as well as efforts on the part of some church leaders to oppose civil laws favoring gay and lesbian people.

4. We regret the pain this has caused our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers, and realize that many have left the practice of their faith because of these statements and actions.

5. At the same time, scripture and tradition have historically judged same-sex sexual activity as inconsistent with the Christian life, a consistent judgment not easily dismissed. There has also, however, been a vigorous debate among clergy, theologians, and the people of God concerning this matter; some have suggested that the scriptural prohibitions and the church's teaching may reflect the prejudices of the past and need to be informed by the modern social sciences.

6. Though at this time we do not see error in the church's teaching on this matter, we invite gay and lesbian Catholics to participate in this ongoing conversation by fully participating in the life of the church in ways befitting the duties and privileges of their baptism and by engaging their pastors and bishops in continuing dialogue, that together we may continue on the path of salvation and the fullness of gospel truth.

7. Our tradition offers sage advice for this sometimes difficult journey: In essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity. May charity guide us in this endeavor.

And it only took me 15 minutes. And, yes, it leaves open the possibility of change, but as anyone who has studied church history knows, doctrinal development--even the correction of error--is a part of our Catholic story.

Inclined to disagree

2006-11-15T08:20:00.000-06:00

The U.S. Catholic bishops took another step toward irrelevance yesterday, issuing three documents that are likely to go over like lead balloons among most Catholics.

The first, "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination," gets dinged from the beginning for not even getting the vocabulary right. I'm waiting for the document that would address the care of persons with a heterosexual "inclination," whatever that is. The bishops get credit for insisting that the children of same-sex couples must be baptized, though this document isn't as strong as the injunction in canon law itself.

Document two, "Married Love and the Gift of Life," will no doubt win the eye-rolls it richly deserves from married couples of childbearing age, only 4 percent of whom practice the Natural Family Planning it endorses. If I were married, though, I'd be more irritated that a group of men who know absolutely nothing about the financial, psychological, and interpersonal demands of childrearing presume to speak so bluntly about a "generous" attitude toward fertility. Add to that the insulting statement that marital sex that uses artificial contraception is merely "casual" and tantamount to lying, and you get a sure winner with the married set.

Finally, and perhaps most sadly, “ 'Happy Are Those Who Are Called To His Supper' ”: On Preparing To Receive Christ Worthily in the Eucharist" encourages those to whom the first two documents apply to refrain from receiving communion if they can't or won't toe the line on gay sex, contraception, and a host of other issues. All I can say is that the day the bishops issue a document on worthiness to preside at Eucharist (Cardinal Law, anyone?), I'll pay attention to a document about who is "worthy" to receive.

All three of these ill-conceived statements share the same problem: Never did the bishops make any effort to consult those addressed. Heaven forbid that the bishops should hold a public dialogue with gay and lesbian Catholics, much less with married ones. No, armed with their infused knowledge, "the grace of orders," or naked presumption, the bishops have once again treated the people of God as a voiceless mass, fit only to listen, never to speak. The bishops are content, it seems, to stay safely in their own magisterial echo chamber.

Pope Richard

2006-11-14T11:15:00.000-06:00

Nixon, that is--and I mean that in the nicest way possible!

I don't mean to compare B16 to the Watergate Nixon, of course. Think "only Nixon can go to China." In this case, "only B16 could call off celibacy."

That's right, God's Rottweiler may be on the verge of relaxing the discipline of celibacy in the Western church, and he's called together a study group in Rome, presumably because of Emmanuel Milingo, an African bishop who got married in a Moonie ceremony and is now making mandatory celibacy a big deal. To wit, he's gathering 1,000 married priests in December.

Now, to be honest, the discipline has been slowly eroding especially since the Church of England began ordaining women in the 1990s. At the time a good number of married Anglican priests came over to Rome--and brought their wives along with them. Here in the U.S., a small number of married Episcopal and Lutheran clergy have also come over; they number about 600 now, I think. So, allowing priests to marry, perhaps before ordination as in the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches, isn't a big theological step, though psychologically it could be huge.

For one, this would mean a dramatic reduction in the number of celibate clergy--which I think would be good for celibacy, since those that choose it would really be choosing it. It might also mean some hard feelings for those long-timers who never got the chance to marry. And it will certainly have practical ramifications: For starters, parishes especially are going to have to start paying salaries that can support a married priest and his family.

We may be jumping the gun, of course, but consider these statistics from Latin America: Right now, about 500,000 Brazilian Roman Catholics a year are becoming evangelicals, primarily because their congregations are smaller and they have plenty of ministers. In Mexico, the Catholic priest to layperson ratio is something like 1 to 7,500; for evangelicals it's 1 to 232. The average age of a Mexican priest is 65; evangelical ministers' average age is 32. You do the math.

What is perhaps most surprising, at least as Reuters reports it, is that the group meeting in Rome on this issue are considering not only permitting married clergy but even the dispensation of current clergy to marry despite already being ordained, and, a bigger deal, allowing those who left to marry to return to active ministry. Good bye clergy shortage. (Wish I was running a "theological update" program for the guys coming back!)

Of course, some parishes will refuse married clergy, but my guess is that their number will be small. And, to quote the Bush administration's favorite expression, "make no mistake, " when and if this change comes, it will be a very big deal with lots (and I mean lots) of unintended and unanticipated consequences.

I say bring it on. If there's one thing our church needs right now, it's a great big shake-up.

Staying in the bedroom

2006-11-13T15:39:00.000-06:00

In light of the fact that much of the bishops' time will be devoted to thinning the communion line of dissenters--with most issues being of the bedroom variety--the following is perhaps not surprising from Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane (whose diocese, incidentally, is now in bankruptcy because of sex abuse claims):

"There is a mocking reduction of sexuality, debasing it from God's beautiful gift of creation to little more than casual chemistry and inconsequential recreation."

Skylstad gets props from CtotheL in his opening address for taking on the "debasing personal attacks" that have characterized much of church debate of late, but let's be honest: Is our culture's sexual excess really the demon that needs exorcising right now? Our country is involved in two wars with religious overtones, the income gap has become a chasm, our church leadership has absolutely no credibility, the priest shortage (and access to the sacraments) is bordering on crisis both here and abroad, the HIV pandemic is showing no signs of abating, and many dioceses are financial ruins.

Pop culture's sex addiction is the least of our problems, especially when study after study shows that most people are choosing monogamous, committed sexual relationships, and the age of first intercourse for teenagers has stabilized and is even showing signs of (upward) improvement.

Of course, sex is always the straw person to go after when one wants to avoid real issues.

Clear as mud

2006-11-13T14:47:00.000-06:00

In response to the overwhelming outcry after the sex abuse scandal for greater transparency in church governance, the U.S. bishops have decided it's better to meet behind closed doors. So, for about half of their annual meeting in Baltimore--where they will be discussing, among other things, new guidelines for pastoral care to gay and lesbian Catholics, a document on determining just who among the baptized are "worthy" for communion, and an official songbook for liturgies in the United States--the bishops will be safely kept from the watchful eyes of their constituents, that is, the people of God, to whom they are bound in service.

Wrong move, guys. All this is likely to accomplish is a more secretive, self-involved hierarchy, and a more irritated, disenfranchised laity.

Could it be that when the bishops got a taste of transparency--and the accountability that goes along with it--their first instinct was to turn tail and run?

Homophobia getting Haggard

2006-11-06T09:50:00.000-06:00

After about two weeks of non-stop stuff, I finally get a breath and a second to blog. I'll have more to say in the coming days--especially as the U.S. bishops are debating a new document on who can (and, evidently more importantly, can't) go to Communion and another on those with a "homosexual inclination." Speaking of such inclinations, I feel compelled to comment about Ted Haggard, former president of the 30-million-member National Association of Evangelicals, now "disgraced" as a frequenter of a male prostitute, despite his vitriolic opposition to homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

In the interests of charity, I only really have one point to make: How strange it is that everyone is interested in the fact that Haggard had sex (or got a massage or whatever) from a man, and no one seems to care that he purchased and presumably used crystal meth, one of the most dangerous and addictive drugs out there. Haggard's own letter of confession focused more on the "darkness" and "dirt" of his "inclination" ("objective disorder" sounds pleasant by comparison) than on the fact that he was using a life-threatening illegal drug.

To my mind, though, what he really needs God's grace to overcome is the deep self-hatred the led him to take such risks. As last Sunday's gospel reminds us, the command to love self is right up there with loving God and neighbor. We all struggle with that from time to time; wouldn't it be nice if everyone made it a little easier for same-sex oriented folk by finally putting prejudice against homosexuality in the bad-idea trash heap where it belongs?

Welcome back, Archbishop Lefebvre!

2006-10-11T10:31:00.000-05:00

B16 is poised to expand the indult that allows the celebration of the Tridentine liturgy, hoping to lure back the Society of St. Pius X, whose founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, was excommunicated in 1988 after he ordained four bishops without permission.

I have to admit, I just LOVE how the Vatican makes concessions to "ultraconservatives" but demands "liberals" toe the line. After all, Lefebvre didn't just reject the liturgical reforms of Vatican II, he rejected the documents on religious freedom and ecumenism, and pretty much everything else that came from the council.

Welcome back, Archbishop Lefebvre! We're sorry; you were right all along.

Of course, if they'd give conciliar liturgists like me the same freedom for liturgical diversity, I'd embrace the new permission for the Tridentine Rite, especially since I'm quite, quite sure that the new liturgy will win any head-to-head competition (if it came to that). Remember that the most recent restrictions on the liturgy in the U.S.--from when eucharistic ministers can receive communion to how many people the presider can offer peace to--were meant to standardize liturgical practice. The Trenties get a pass on that.

The conciliar reform has been welcomed throughout the world, and even the yes-men bishops we have today have nearly unanimously said that they don't want any backward movement on this count. Besides, what the Latin Mass folks seem to forget is that most Tridentine liturgies were "low" Masses for the dead--no music, no preaching, just Father charging through in about 20 minutes. How reverent. And wait til you hear a poorly trained parish choir try to get through some chanty masterpiece. Even George Weigel will be wishing for anything by Marty Haugen!

Talk about making sense

2006-10-06T11:51:00.000-05:00

A column by Andrew Greeley in Chicago's Daily Southtown ("Ignoring the North Side seven days a week") points out just what's wrong with the church when it comes to vocations to ordained ministry and, better, how to make it right. Lamenting the closure of the Chicago archdiocese's high school seminary, Greeley notes that current church leadership is content to close schools, parishes, and seminaries rather than come up with creative solutions.

Greeley's idea: "I have been arguing for years that men should be invited to serve in the ministry for limited terms (though they will always be priests), renewable every five or seven or 10 years. If after this period of service they are burned out, can't stand teens or pests or one another or simply want to start families, let them go in peace and gratitude from the active ministry. Many young men would be willing to try the priesthood and discover that they were happy in it. Perhaps we could keep some of the seminaries open. . . . It is surely necessary to reconsider the issue of priestly vocations, to try experiments, perhaps to set up schools for training young men and women for limited-term service in the priesthood and the religious life. That would be much more complicated and perhaps risky. It's easier just to close seminaries."

Let's see: Between dragging the poor Cure d'Ars heart from France and experimenting as Greeley suggests, which do you think has the better shot at success? Now, of the two, which one is the current crop of bishops trying? Now why is that?

Search me.

This is sure to solve the vocation crisis

2006-10-05T11:28:00.000-05:00

The archdioceses of New York and Boston have teamed up to bring the heart of the Cure d'Ars, St. John Vianney, on a U.S. tour. Boston Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley explained, "We bring him [John Vianney] to Boston in the hope that his life and deeds will be an inspiration to our parish priests and an inspiration to others to consider whether they are being called to serve as priests in our parishes," according to the Boston Globe.

Of course I understand that John Vianney is the model parish priest, but, really, his dried up heart in a glass case? Now that is creepy. And what box do you check on the FedEx airbill for something like that? Does it travel in bubble wrap?

Of course, you know a system that relies on traffic in corpses is on its last legs. If the needs of the people of God aren't enough to inspire some to ordination under the current regime, I doubt an internal organ, however holy, is going to do it.

Of course I hear there are legions of folks--married, female, gay, etc.--who don't need a religious sideshow to join up. And I think they love God's people as much as the Cure d'Ars did. Too bad their shepherds don't.

Pagan babies, rejoice!

2006-10-04T13:35:00.000-05:00

Looks like all those unbaptized folks are going to get sprung from Limbo. B16's going to abolish it any day now. Read all about it!

Now prepare for the onslaught of "it was never really a Catholic doctrine" spin. Sorry, folks, limbo was a commonly held belief a mere generation ago, and it's demise the result of a doctrinal change far more common (and drastic): "No salvation outside the church." Remember that one? It's been replaced by the universal salvific will of God. (See Lumen Gentium, 13.)

Thank you, Vatican II.

More on the Pope and the Prophet

2006-10-04T09:35:00.000-05:00

Below is an excerpt from an interview in this morning’s Zenit. Notice the difference between the Christian Logos and the Muslim Allah; I got this same basic idea on my own reading of B16’s speech. It basically confirms for me, first, that the pope was critiquing Islam (though in an oblique way), and, second, that if I was a Muslim, I'd be madder about B16's "reduction" of Allah to "will." The tradition of the 99 or 100 names of Allah alone calls into question the true extent of B16's understanding of Islam. Besides, worshiping the "Logos" for 2,000 years has not prevented Christians from acting incredibly irrationally.

Here's the excerpt. I added the bold, of course:

“Jesuit Father James Schall, professor of political philosophy at Georgetown University, is author of "The Life of the Mind: On the Joys and Travails of Thinking" (ISI Books).

"He shared with ZENIT why he thinks the Regensburg lecture was liberating and imperative, and how the reaction to it highlighted the modern disconnect between faith and reason.

"Q: At Regensburg, Benedict XVI highlighted the Christian understanding of God as Logos. How does the idea of God as Logos differ from an Islamic conception of God?

Father Schall: The Holy Father posed the fundamental question that lies behind all the discussion about war and terror. If God is Logos, it means that a norm of reason follows from what God is. Things are, because they have natures and are intended to be the way they are because God is what he is: He has his own inner order.

"If God is not Logos but 'Will,' as most Muslim thinkers hold Allah to be, it means that, for them, Logos places a 'limit' on Allah. He cannot do everything because he cannot do both evil and good. He cannot do contradictories.

Thus, if we want to 'worship' Allah, it means we must be able to make what is evil good or what is good evil. That is, we can do whatever is said to be the 'will' of Allah, even if it means doing violence as if it were 'reasonable.'

Otherwise, we would "limit" the "power" of Allah. This is what the Pope meant about making violence "reasonable." This different conception of the Godhead constitutes the essential difference between Christianity and Islam, both in their concept of worship and of science.”

CtotheL: Of course, you get a whole other theology if you’re primary symbol for God is love (agape) rather than reason (logos). For B16 God is the Ultimate Knower (following Thomas Aquinas rather than B16’s more natural theological father, Augustine, who I think would go more for God as the Ultimate Lover if forced to pick). What’s funny to me is that I think it’s hard to read Jesus descriptions of his Abba and get an Ultimate Knower. Ultimate Forgiver, maybe...

Fight terror withn non-terror

2006-10-02T15:57:00.000-05:00

Ran across this from Mohandas Gandhi, something to think about just days after the Senate gave the president the power to "interpret" the "vague" Geneva Conventions when it speaks of torture. And once again, the silence from our church leadership is deafening. Gandhi, I'm sure, would have much to say about our fight-terror-with-terror approach to extremism. But I'll let him speak for himself.

In reply to photographer Margaret Bourke's question just hours before his assassination in 1947 about what he would do if the atom bomb came to India, Gandhi replied: "I will not go underground. I will not go into a shelter. I will come out in the open and let the pilot see that I have not a trace of ill will against him. The pilot will not see our faces from his great height, I know. But the longing in our hearts that he will not come to harm would reach up to him and his eyes would be opened. If those thousands who were done to death in Hiroshima, if they had died with that prayerful action--died openly with that prayer in their hearts--their sacrifice would not have gone in vain.

"Nonviolence is the only thing the atom bomb cannot destroy. Unless the world adopts nonviolence, the atom bomb will spell certain suicide for mankind. . . . The moral to be legitimately drawn from the supreme tragedy of the bomb is that it will not be destroyed by counter-bombs, even as violence cannot be destroyed by counter-violence. Mankind has to get out of violence only through nonviolence. Hatred can only be overcome by love. We have to make truth and nonviolence not matters for mere individual practice but for practice by groups and communities and nations."

Ceasefire anyone?

Anglican angst

2006-09-29T16:42:00.000-05:00

All's not been quiet on the Catholic front, but it's been hard to keep up of late. Here's something from the Anglican Communion's continuing rows (to use the Brit word) over gays, women, and bishops from both groups.

It seems the “Windsor compliant” primates (those who support the 1990-something Windsor Report that says homosexuality is contrary to biblical teaching) met in Rwanda. Most are from the Global South and belong to a group insisting on what we might call a more conservative approach to Anglicanism. Few if any ordain women priests, and none ordain them bishops. At the meeting many said they would snub Episcopal Presiding Bishop-elect Katharine Jefferts Schori when she comes to the Anglican primates meeting; others said they would meet with her, though only in "impaired communion." They also called for the creation of another U.S. Anglican church, and the eight Episcopal dioceses who have rejected Schori met in Texas recently, planning strategy I guess.

Episcopal News Service can fill you in on the whole sordid affair. You can also get Our Sunday Visitor's (gloating?) take on the whole thing; don't know why OsV would devote so many inches to someone else's problems. A warning to liberal Catholics? Proof that women and gays are nothing but trouble? You decide.

I’d be willing to bet the whole schismatic crowd, or at least a healthy number of them, will be coming over to Rome eventually, as many did when both the U.S. Episcopal and then the Church of England began ordaining women. Lucky us.

What will happen to a possible married bishop, do you think? Of course, usually if you’re conservative enough, you can do whatever you want.

Both pope and professor?

2006-09-19T13:40:00.000-05:00

A friend and reader asked when I was going to comment on the Benedict v. the entire Muslim world smackdown. First, apologies to the faithful--I've been more than a bit swamped, so I've been a bad blogger.

My personal opinion about B16's allegedly inflammatory remarks is simply that he forgot himself: He's the pope, not a professor, and everything single thing he says is fair game, even when he's misinterpreted. I find it hard to believe, however, that he didn't anticipate that his quote of a 14th-c. Byzantine emperor about Islam would go over badly, though maybe not as badly as it has. If he didn't, he's guilty of a naivete that we generally don't expect of him. I'd be willing to bet that no one outside the immediate papal circle--and certainly not anyone involved in Catholic-Muslim dialogue--read that piece. If the now-dismissed former president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, had seen it, it never would have been said.

In the pope's defense--and let me reiterate that he made a huge mistake for which he should apologize (and I don't mean "I'm sorry some Muslims took what I said the wrong way")--I don't doubt that he intended no disrespect to Islam or the prophet Muhammad. And unfortunately some will see the violent protests as proof of inherent violence within Islam. (If you want a real defense of B16, you'll want to read John Allen's op-ed piece in today's New York Times. Incidentally, I think it a bit unfair that Allen mentions the murder of an Italian priest in Turkey as an example of Muslim countries' oppression of Christians. Tens of thousands of Muslims have died at the hands of Christians in the past four years. If we're going to do a body count, Christianity is not going to come out looking good.)

At the same time it is valuable to remember that there are over 1 billion Muslims; if they really wanted a holy war, we'd have one. Indeed, considering the atrocities in Iraq and Guantanamo, I'd argue that most of the Muslim world has shown remarkable restraint. And, as many Muslims have argued, given both history and the current state of affairs, it is presumptuous for a Christian leader to lecture anyone about violence done in the name of religion. Add to that the fact that most Muslims are probably hearing the pope's comments both third- or fourth-hand and translated, and we shouldn't wonder why we have such a problem on our hands.

There were two op-ed pieces in today's Chicago Tribune that I think shed real and objective light on the situation: one by Martin Marty, formerly of the University of Chicago; the other by Notre Dame's Paul Cobb.

The whole thing makes you long for the days of JPII. He may have been grumpy with the West, liberal Catholics, and Communists, but he did know how to treat everyone else well!

I'm getting a Darwin fish thing for my car

2006-08-28T12:22:00.000-05:00

The Guardian is reporting that B16 is convening his annual gathering of former doctoral students, including Schoborn (see last post), to discuss--guess what--creation and evolution. Looks like Coyne's ouster may be more than mere retirement after all. (Though the Guardian also notes that Coyne had asked to be replaced for health reason.)

Creepier still, however, is Papa Ratzi's group--sounds suspiciously like another unelected, unaccountable right-wing think-tank like those plaguing both America and the church today. Think George Weigel and his American Enterprise Institute-type crowd. The last thing I want is Ignatius Press founder Joseph Fessio (Bene-buddy and provost of Ave Maria University) dictating church policy on evolution.

We don't need the pope to deal with the classically American Intelligent Design problem. There's a reason the U.S. bishops have left this thing alone: It's stupid! Schonborn had no business giving his two euro-cents on a U.S. matter--his archdiocese of Vienna is a damn mess as it is. Cardinals are advisors to the pope, not the rest of the world's bishops. It's called subsidiarity, which means local matters are best dealt with on a local level.

So butt out, Christophe!

Schonborn strikes back!

2006-08-24T14:05:00.000-05:00

The Dark Lord of Vienna, Cardinal Christoph Schonborn--if you are to believe conspiracy theorists anyway--has engineered the removal of his nemesis, Jesuit Father George Coyne, as head of the Vatican Observatory, according to Religion News Service. Coyne, 73 and director since 1978, publicly took on Schonborn over the latter's New York Times op-ed piece supporting intelligent design (ID). Coyne responded in a brilliant Tablet (U.K.) piece and a talk at a Florida university supporting the scientific theory of evolution.

Of course, no one is acknowledging that Coyne's views had anything to do with the change--although some conservative sites are claiming the Vatican removed the "controversial" Coyne--but of interest is the fact that the August 19 announcement from Rome didn't even mention Coyne. His replacement, 43-year-old Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, also a Jesuit, holds a doctorate in astronomy and is an expert in stellar evolution (not the biological kind).

If there's some machination behind Coyne's dismissal, it'll come out. And if B16 was behind it, that doesn't bode well for Jesuits, as former America editor Tom Reese could well attest.

No girlz allowed--the Bible says so!

2006-08-24T13:46:00.000-05:00

Everyone by now has surely heard of the case of Mary Lambert, 81, fired as a Sunday school teacher "for being a woman," at least as the New York State North Country Gazette reports it. Both the pastor of the Watertown, New York Baptist church and its deacon council (whose members are 55 percent women) insist there are other reasons Lambert was fired after 54 years--but they still come back to 1 Timothy 2:12: "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent." Just how did the pastor convince those women to go along?

You know, this just makes all Christians look stupid, especially when applied so inconsistently, even at the First Baptist Church of Watertown, where more than 80 percent of the Sunday School teachers are women.

Then again, we Catholics are no better. At least Tim LaBouf, the pastor in question, has a Bible passage expressly forbidding women from teaching. The Catholic scriptural argument against the ordination of women rests on the assumption that there were no women at the Last Supper, accounts of which mention both the "twelve" (Matthew and Luke) and "the disciples" (all four gospels), and at least that latter group included women.

Oh well, I guess we all use scripture when it suits us...

What did you do on your summer vacation?

2006-08-18T14:55:00.000-05:00

If you're Archbishop John Sentamu, Anglican Archbishop of York and second only to the archbishop of Canterbury in the Church of England, you camp out in your church.

Sentamu, a native of Uganda, became increasingly disturbed by the coverage of the conflict in Lebanon, so he decided to skip his German vacation, pitch a tent in his cathedral, Yorkminster, and go on a 7-day water fast, praying every hour from 9 am to 5 pm and getting up for further prayers through the night.

All you folks who wish young people would return to the church should give Sentamu a second look, according to the Guardian, whose reporter writes, "The interview finishes in time for [Sentamu] to return to prayer. A few minutes later, he is back beside me, silently handing over a card. Inside, a 17-year-old girl has written to tell him how moved she has been by his action and is enclosing her pocket money, a £20 note. 'If only this generosity, this desire to love your neighbour, could spread,' he says, 'we could solve this without war.' "

Another noteworthy quote: "I think this has taught me to listen and not to grumble. We as a church are preoccupied with sexual morality, but there is a more important morality in terms of poverty, justice and equality. This has been helpful. One drop of water cannot turn a water wheel but many drops can." This while many of his brother bishops are practically campaigning among conservative Episcopal bishops in the U.S. about the gay issue.

Preach it, brother.

Oh, and by the way, Sentamu started his fast on Sunday; a ceasefire went into effect on Sunday. Not wanting to take any credit, the archbishop notes, "The more I pray, the more coincidences there are."

Don't try this at home

2006-08-18T14:42:00.000-05:00

Well, when it rains, it pours: Father Daniel Rupp of Barton, Vermont has decided to race in a demolition derby to raise $6,000 and send his Catholic school teachers to Rome. Known for his, ahem, unorthodox approach to fundraising--Rupp has raffled pigs and sold roses at his parish--the priest plans to sell sponsorships; sponsors names will appear on Rupp's car, the "Vicar General" (gag!). The local funeral home has already signed up, though Rupp admits they have the most to gain if his race is, well, let's say unsuccessful.

The response by diocesan officials was measured, acording to the Burlington Free Press: "He knows that in doing something so worthwhile, that God will watch out for him," said the Rev. Peter Routhier, vicar general of the diocese. "There'll be a number of people praying this will be safe -- and that it's the only time he does this."

Worthwhile or not, I for one would not want to have to explain myself to St. Peter having died in a stock car race--in the middle of a priest shortage at that!

Hungry?

2006-08-18T14:32:00.000-05:00

Well don't eat this--a collection of chocolate droppings alleged to look like the Virgin Mary. (I, however, don't quite see it.) What's better are the comments from the MSNBC story (all the following are comments from the story):

I'm curious as to why the Virgin Mary always chooses to reveal herself in food--grilled cheese, chocolate ... what is she really trying to say? I think she is trying to reach out to Nicole Richie.

Personally I think it looks like an owl.

I always knew chocolate was God. [CtotheL: Can't argue with that!]

Of course, then there's Cruz Jacinta, who found the chocolate Virgin, a mom who's been having marital difficulties: "I have big problems right now, personally, and lately I've been saying that God doesn't exist. This has given me renewed faith."

Maybe it is Mary.

Pope chat

2006-08-18T10:15:00.000-05:00

It would seem strange to overlook the TV and radio interview Papa Ratzi gave to four German journalists, which took place on May 8 but is only now being released in English (available on the U.K. Tablet's website).

Granting that the questions were softballs to say the least (a lot of Holy Father-this and Holy Father-that--though probably just a question of protocol), Benedict seems to have been charming, affable, and moderate. He was given plenty of opportunity to go on a tirade about secularism and same-sex marriage and the like, but he repeatedly returned to the idea that Catholicism needs to present a positive vision rather than just saying "no" all the time. He even seemed to be trying to avoid saying things that would seem negative, although his answer to why the church continued to oppose the use of condoms in the effort against HIV/AIDS seemed unnecessarily meandering and a little obtuse.

I'll let you read it for yourself--it's worth the 20 minutes it will take. But in light of B16's general positive tone, openness to dialogue, and appreciation for collegiality of all things, one starts to wonder if there isn't indeed some bad cop to Bennie's good, who keeps running around issuing scathing condemnations right and left.

Either that or we've got a Jeckyll-and-Hyde pope on our hands. Better send Katie Couric in to find out.

Could I be the next Rocco Palmo?

2006-08-18T09:46:00.000-05:00

Or Amy Welborn?

Well, probably not, but thanks to Renee Schafer Horton of the Tucson-area Explorer newspaper, I've finally got some press coverage. Renee, a Catholic who writes her "Faith Matters" column for the paper, interviewed me a couple of weeks ago about my post on the ordinations of 12 women on a river outside Pittsburgh, giving me plenty of column space to make my point that the real issue around ordination is why we continue to insist that virtually all sacramental ministry require a priest.

Anyway, here's the link to Renee's column, and back to my original post on the ordinations--in case you missed it.

Bingo, begone!

2006-08-11T13:50:00.000-05:00

The Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta in Canada, Fred Henry, is turning the screws on parishes and Catholic schools that use bingo and casino nights as fundraisers, demanding that they seek alternative methods of raising cash. Henry has been more in the news lately for his strident opposition to same-sex marriage in Canada.

"The end doesn't justify the means. It is morally wrong for a Catholic school, club, society or parish to co-operate with an industry exploiting the weak and the vulnerable," said Henry, according to an article in the Calgary Sun. "We simply can't do it." He vowed increase pressure on institutions that don't get in line, though he didn't initially mention breaking their kneecaps.

Well, though I don't have much use for Henry's standard arguments against the civil rights of gay and lesbian people in Canada--he claims the goal of gays who want to marry is to "acquire a powerful psychological weapon to change society's rejection of homosexual activity and lifestyle into gradual, even if reluctant, acceptance"--I think he's right on this one. We Catholics may not be against gambling as such, but using it to fund our ministries is at least a little shady, given how ruinous gambling has been for many.

Which just goes to show how it's possible for Catholics (at least this one) to disagree on one issue but agree on others. Though I don't think the Knights of Columbus (see a couple of posts ago), who I'm sure run a couple of parish gambling operations themselves, would agree with me on either point.

Oh well. It's a big tent. Definitely large enough for all that Columbian plumage.

News flash: Bishop actually meets with faithful

2006-08-11T11:38:00.000-05:00

Wow. After a mere three years, the archbishop of Boston has finally met with members of Voice of the Faithful, the reform group organized after the sex abuse scandal broke in Boston. Truly a model of responsiveness to the needs of God's people.

Neither VOTF nor O'Malley would comment on the content of the meeting nor if they would meet again. A spokesperson for O'Malley said that the archbishop had not relaxed the ban that had prevented VOTF members from meeting in their own parishes. The ban against VOTF has been in place since now-resigned-in-utter-disgrace Bernard Law imposed it in 2002.

People can rant all they want about the church not being a democracy--a claim I think is a bit broad anyway--but for a bishop to refuse for three years to meet an organized group of baptized Catholics with legitimate grievances is an absolute disgrace and a disservice to the people of God.

Furthermore, that the contents of this meeting should remain private is equally problematic. The issues at stake--transparency, accountability, stewardship of the resources of God's people--are public matters. This is not some private dispute between the archbishop as a person and a couple of influential Catholics; this is a public issue about the relationship between the local church and its leader. While the blame for the time it took to get this meeting lies with the archbishop, the fact that VOTF is willing to play along in the quiet game is disheartening. That's not going to get them the kind reform they want.

Knights joust with UW-Madison

2006-08-10T15:35:00.000-05:00

In a flare-up seemingly destined for the courts, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has decertified the campus Knights of Columbus chapter because it admits only Catholic men; state law requires that campus-affiliated organizations be open to all students regardless of religion and be run by students. Although the university originally released a statement that it had reached an agreement with the Knights to create an affiliate organization that would be open to all students, the Knights are protesting that no such deal had been struck.

This seems to me to be a no-brainer: If the Knights want university recognition (and probably a chunk of student fees to go with it), they should be open to all students; actually, it might be a great opportunity for evangelization. If the Knights impressive enough, they might attract some new folks to Catholicism. On the other hand, if they want to restrict membership, they can easily affiliate with a local parish. Piece of cake. Like it or not, if you want public recognition at a state school, you have to play by their rules. Let this be a lesson to all you folks who want public funding for Catholic schools; you can expect the same.

I know, I know, this is just another example of liberal academia taking potshots at us poor Catholics. Then again, it could be a great opportunity to show how calm and open Catholicism can be, unthreatened by the people who might want to share our work but aren't ready to accept our beliefs.

It'll be OK, guys. And if it doesn't work out, you can always change your mind. That parish is probably just right down the street.

Springs of water, bless the pope!

2006-08-09T12:16:00.000-05:00

With the pope on summer hiatus, there's not been much of interest to report, unless you count India's Catholic bishops encouraging their flock to multiply, since the percentage of Christians in the area is declining. Not sure that's the best idea, seeing that India already has more than a billion people, but I think I've made my views clear on this one.

A new monument to JPII in his hometown of Wadowice is, however, making headlines as a new source of magic--sorry--healing water. Whoever built the new statue cleverly installed a fountain, knowing full well that Catholics can't resist bottling water from shrines, apparition sites, and churches, which makes for good business in holy water-holding and other related devotional merchandise.

Wadowice Mayor Ewa Filipiak spoke tellingly of her hopes for the water, especially if JPII is beatified: "[The fountain] has turned into an additional and very welcome attraction and embellishment of this place linked to John Paul II." An attraction, eh? Like Disneyland?

Of course, many Poles have a great devotion to the former pope, but if the local authorities really wanted it to seem authentic, they should have either made it look like a spring rose up spontaneously--or at least not revealed the true purpose of water, which, according to the mayor was simply meant to enhance the gray-brown color of the monument.

Well, at least the town well that provides the water is from the 16th century, which makes the water at least really old if not particularly holy.

The loons are loose

2006-08-03T15:20:00.000-05:00

Showing no sign of scaling back it's anti-gay rhetoric, the Vatican announced today its theme for the 40th annual World Day of Prayer for Peace--and also identified "propaganda and the growing acceptance of disordered lifestyles contrary to human dignity" as factors that are "weakening the hearts and minds of people to the point of extinguishing the desire for ordered and peaceful coexistence."

Nice. So now the gays are to blame for there being no peace in the world.

Of course the Vatican statement also identified "aberrant ideologies [and] the misguided use of science and technology" as "a threat to humanity," arguing that "peace is in danger when human dignity is not respected and when social coexistence does not seek the common good."

As true as at least some of that may be, is this the best we can do for world peace? You'd think a document entitled, "The Human Person: The Heart of Peace," might be a little more hopeful. Instead we get another impenetrable tirade.

Well, perhaps when the final statement comes out, it will be at least readable, if not worth reading. Chalk this one up to another missed opportunity.

And who is the homophobe running amok in the halls of the Eternal City? This is getting old.