Hoc autem qui parce seminat parce et metet et qui seminat in benedictionibus de benedictionibus et metet. Unusquisque prout destinavit corde suo non ex tristitia aut ex necessitate hilarem enim datorem diligit Deus. 2 Cor 9:6-7.
I saw this video on the site of MLB.com with a biretta tip to CMR.
If you can’t see the video, CLICK HERE:
From Italian journalist Marco Tosati on the Vatican Insider of the Italian daily La Stampa comes this.
Raymond Leo Burke, the “great puppeteer” of American appointees
The appointment of Chaput to the Diocese of Philadelphia confirms Burke’s role as the Pope’s trusted man in the US
marco tosatti
romeThe nomination of Charles Chaput, Native American bishop from Denver, to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia confirms Raymond Leo Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, as Benedict XVI’s top advisor in the United States. One of the first signs of his role as a bridge between the influential United States Conference of Bishops and the pontifical apartment was the appointment of Timothy Michael Dolan as successor to Cardinal Edward Egan in New York.
Dolan, who is currently conducting a vigorous and efficient battle against the increasingly anti-Catholic positions of the New York Times (which a few months ago refused to publish his reply to a polemical article against the Church) is certainly in sympathy with Burke, and with the American bishops who must face new initiatives from the Obama presidency every day. [“Efficient” is perhaps more a more optimistic adjective than I would have chosen.]
Raymond Leo Burke tried to warn anyone in the Vatican who wanted to listen (as well as those who turned a deaf ear) that Obama would be a disaster for traditional values – family, marriage, abortion, and so on – but no one believed him. [That seems to be the case.] Bertone was optimistic, and L’Osservatore Romano, the voice of the Secretary of State’s office (and, especially at this time, the Secretary of State himself), had given an impressive welcome to the first African-American President.
Burke, a man accustomed to calling things as he sees them, and “saying” more than “praying,” [I don’t believe that is an accurate characterization. in the first place. Moreover, in the Italian original we find “abituato a dire pane al pane”, which is part of a saying “dire pane al pane e vino al vino”, which is like saying “call a spade a spade”.] showed no hesitation in expressing his opinions, to the point where the Secretary of State received [beware] a courteous request to stop releasing interviews that were negative and critical toward the new President. [I don’t know who did this translation but it is not great. The Italian says that a request arrived from the Secretariate of State. Rather different, no?]
Perhaps someone will start to believe Burke, now that the American ambassador to Rome (just like his colleagues around the world) has, at Washington’s behest, become a promoter of gay parades and other events – even in Pakistan – where Benedict XVI is represented in a vulgar and offensive manner.
But someone (or Someone with a capital “S”) in the Vatican holds the frankness and clarity of vision of the head of the Vatican Supreme Court, in high esteem.
Someone knows – and benefits from – his deep knowledge of people and things overseas, and his ability to identify solutions in terms of candidates for dioceses that are gradually freeing themselves [sigh… liberersi… “fall vacant”, not “freeing themselves”…], in a Church still shaken by the financial and public relations aftershocks of the paedophilia scandal.
Charles Chaput was initially supposed to be appointed as Archbishop of Chicago, [Oh?] replacing the ill Cardinal George in the great lakeside diocese. But fortunately, the head of the diocese still feels able to manage his role with dignity and efficiency, when his illness is not acting up. Thus it is not at all certain when he will need to be replaced.
This uncertainty has not escaped many in the Curia: it is believed, especially by Burke, that Chaput will shortly be assured a diocese that will rather rapidly (some sources say a Consistory will be held at the end of this year or the beginning of the next) [I’ll believe it when I see it.] win him the cardinal’s berretta. [How does a cardinal’s berretta or beretta differ from that of an ordinary priest or bishop? For proper liturgical use of the beretta, try this.]
According to rumours flying around, behind the Leonine Wall during John Paul II’s pontificate, and in the first years of Benedict XVI’s pontificate, one of the great “puppeteers” of the appointment of overseas bishops was the current prefect of the Pontifical Household, Archbishop James Michael Harvey. He seems to still be hanging onto the role, but – if one believes certain sources – it has been greatly reduced with the arrival of Raymond Leo Burke. The next few months brings a deadline for many American bishops; then we will see what influence the new prefect for bishops – Canadian Marc Ouellette – and Burke himself will have in changing the episcopal face of the Stars and Stripes.
This chatty Italian style doesn’t transfer well into English, unless you are 16. And in many points – I pointed to a few – the translation was just plain wrong. But the essential message is clear. Marco Tosati believes that Card. Burke is guiding the important appointments for the USA.
I direct you back to two proposals I made about the appointment of bishops.
PROPOSAL 1: Stop, now, and say a prayer to the guardian angels of those who must make these decisions.
PROPOSAL 2: If your diocese is presently “sede vacante“, for each minute of gossip and even of speculation – which will go on anyway – spend 10 in prayer.
These are difficult times. The devil is abroad and has great wrath. The appointment of bishops is always important and difficult.
The bigger the see, the more important the choice, as we have seen to our great consternation.
I recently posted about a new liberal arts college for England.
Thanks to rogueclassicism I found an article on the site of Times Higher Education which will be of interest to many of you. My emphases and comments.
Reading Aristotle can roll back the tide of relativism
By Matthew Reisz
A leading educational researcher has called for a revival of “classical education” that goes beyond television documentaries, popular books about Socrates, GCSEs in ancient civilisation and the promotion of Latin as part of an International Baccalaureate. [Promotion of LATIN.]
Speaking at the Institute of Ideas Education Forum this week, Dennis Hayes, professor of education at the University of Derby, argued that we are not “on the verge of a second Renaissance”.
The enthusiasm for Classics among politicians such as Boris Johnson or Michael Gove was largely a result of misty-eyed nostalgia for their own “public or grammar school education”, he said.
What this tended to miss out were the things that made the classical tradition genuinely important. Prominent among these was ancient philosophers’ commitment to “objectivism” – “seeing things as they really are” – and an attendant “recognition of the need for a constant struggle against subjectivism, superstition and backwardness”. [Is it too late for public education? I wonder.]
The core values of today’s universities, continued Professor Hayes, are “counter to the classical spirit”.
We find “a woolly-minded relativism that allows management to have their values, marketing (to have) another (set of values), teacher training departments another, academic faculties another”, with “lecturers left to try to ignore or subvert these while pursuing their own values. This subjective muddle keeps going because there is no challenge to it.”
It is here that some of the great classical authors can play a vital role, Professor Hayes said, arguing that students should be “trained in the tradition of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
“Plato destroys relativism in two pages,” he continued. “Classics teaching often focuses on accuracy of translation, which means that even those who know Greek can miss the point.
“What really matters is the rigour of thinking, which is a central feature of Greek philosophy. That is the aspect largely missing from current education and that most needs emphasising at the present time.”
Professor Hayes is due to develop his analysis in greater depth on 23 July as part of the Institute of Ideas Academy, a three-day residential event that aims “to take a stand for the value of the content of education instead of fixating on object and process”.
“A better understanding of a classical education,” he suggested this week, “would require us to demand it for all pupils and students” – provided it is based on “the defence of objectivity, criticism and intellectual detachment against subjectivity, compliance and the promotion of popular fads and fashions“.
In a warning against tokenism, he concluded: “What is on offer in schools today and any development of it, without the classical outlook of struggling to ‘see things as they really are‘, will be mere dressing up. We might as well have potential students turning up for interview in togas.”
matthew.reisz@tsleducation.com.
And learn Latin, too. Lots and lots of Latin.
Note that this is coming from secular educators.
I have written before about His Excellency Most Rev. R. Walker Nickless, Bishop of Sioux City. You may remember his outstanding pastoral letter.
Bp. Nickless has issued Guidelines and Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion
Under both Kinds and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
Let’s have a look at a few of the high points, with my emphases and comments.
Guidelines and Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under both Kinds and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
Diocese of Sioux City
I. Introduction
“On the day before he was to suffer, he took bread in his holy and venerable hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father, giving you thanks he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples…”[1] When our Lord thus “offered to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine, and under the symbols of those same things gave [Himself] to the apostles,” [2] He gave the Church the Eucharist as the unchanging memorial of His death and Resurrection. The Church always and everywhere has faithfully celebrated this memorial with the utmost reverence and devotion:
The most venerable Sacrament is the blessed Eucharist, in which Christ the Lord Himself is contained, offered, and received, and by which the Church continually lives and grows. The Eucharistic Sacrifice, the memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord… is the summit and the source of all worship and Christian life. By means of it the unity of God’s people is signified and brought about, and the building up of the Body of Christ is perfected. [3]
In fact, “The Church draws her life from the Eucharist. This truth does not simply express a daily experience of faith, but recapitulates the heart of the mystery of the Church.”[4] At the very heart of this Eucharistic mystery is the sacrifice of the Holy Mass. It is through the celebration of Mass that the faithful, along with the sacred ministers, worship God the Father, through Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit; and, particularly through sacramental communion, the faithful take part more fully in the Eucharistic celebration. “Those who have been raised to the dignity of the royal priesthood by Baptism and configured more deeply to Christ by Confirmation participate with the whole community in the Lord’s own sacrifice by means of the Eucharist.”[5]
Just as Christ gave the Eucharist to the Church under the double sign of bread and wine, “Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds.”[6] Therefore, “Sacred pastors should take care to ensure that the faithful who participate in the rite or are present at it are as fully aware as possible of the Catholic teaching on the form of Holy Communion as set forth by the Ecumenical Council of Trent.”[7] Namely:
[T]his belief has always been in the Church of God, that immediately after the consecration, the true body of our Lord and His true blood, together with His soul and divinity, exist under the species of bread and wine; but, indeed, the body under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine… the same body, however, under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread… and the soul under both… and the divinity furthermore…. Therefore, it is very true that as much is contained under either species, as under both.[8]
Therefore,
The Holy Synod itself, instructed by the Holy Spirit… and following the judgment and custom of the Church itself, declares and teaches that laity, and clerics not officiating, are bound by no divine law to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species, and that without injury to the faith there can be no doubt at all that communion under either species suffices for them for salvation.[9]
Moreover, as I taught in my pastoral letter, Ecclesia semper reformanda, “We must renew our reverence, love, adoration and devotion to the Most Blessed Sacrament, within and outside of Mass.”[10] Such a renewal obviously entails that we love and receive the great gift of the Eucharist with the same gratitude and joy, in obedience to the Church, our holy mother, regardless of whether we may be blessed to receive Him under the species of bread alone, or of wine alone, or of both together. Holding firmly this true and Catholic faith, and the same belief in the Real Presence of our Lord “truly, really, and substantially”[11] under either form of the sacrament of the Eucharist, together with all the clergy of this diocese, I encourage the faithful “to seek to participate more eagerly in this sacred rite, by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident.”[12]
To that end, I now offer the following guidelines and norms to govern the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds and the expectations for all Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion in the Diocese of Sioux City.[13]
II. When Communion Under Both Kinds May Be Given
The time when Communion is distributed under both kinds has never been universal, i.e. everywhere and at every Mass.[14] The faithful who receive the Eucharist, receive the fullness of Christ’s Body and Blood, soul and divinity, under either species (of bread or of wine). There are appropriate times to invite the faithful to receive our Lord under both species, and other appropriate times to offer Holy Communion to the faithful only under the species of bread. Holy Communion under both kinds may freely be offered:
a. In addition to those instances specified by the specific ritual books, such as at Ordination, Confirmation and other specific rituals when this permission is granted, there are several instances when the General Instruction of the Roman Missal states that Communion under both kinds may be permitted:[15]
a. for priests who are not able to celebrate or concelebrate;
b. for the deacon and others who perform some role at Mass;
c. for the community members at their conventual Mass (religious orders), for seminarians, and for all who are on retreat or are participating in a spiritual or pastoral gathering.
b. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal states:
i. The diocesan bishop also has the faculty to allow Communion under both kinds, whenever it seems appropriate to the priest to whom charge of a given community has been entrusted as its own pastor, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason.[16]
Particular Law for the Diocese of Sioux City
1. Where there is a large number of faithful present and the gathering is taking place in a building or venue other than a church, Communion is to be offered only under the species of the Consecrated Host. Exceptions to this norm may be granted only with the explicit written permission of the diocesan bishop.
c. The Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America states, “In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary minister might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species or for using intinction instead of distributing the Precious Blood from the chalice.”[17]
a. Priests in the Diocese of Sioux City might consider using intinction or offering Holy Communion only under the species of bread, so as to avoid such an “excessive use” of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
Particular Law for the Diocese of Sioux City
2. In parishes, chapels, and institutions in the Diocese of Sioux City, Communion under both kinds is permitted on those times specifically instructed in the ritual books, i.e. Confirmation, Ordination.
3. Communion under both forms may also be distributed at Masses on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation.
a. This should be done in such a way so as to avoid the “excessive use” of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Communion may be briefly prolonged, so as to use fewer Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
4. Communion under both forms may be distributed at daily Masses at the discretion of the priest who is celebrating the Mass. [Interesting. Not the pastor of the parish, but the celebrating priest.]
III. The Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
a. By virtue of his sacred ordination, the bishop or priest offers the sacrifice in the person of Christ, the head of the Church. He receives gifts of bread and wine from the faithful, offers the sacrifice to God, and returns them the very Body and Blood of Christ, as from the hands of Christ himself. Thus bishops and priests are considered the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. In addition, the deacon who assists the bishop or priest in distributing Communion is an ordinary minister of Holy Communion. When the Eucharist is distributed under both forms, the deacon ministers the chalice.[18]
b. Bishops, priests, and deacons distribute Holy Communion by virtue of their office as ordinary ministers of the Body and Blood of the Lord.[19]
IV. Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
a. An Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion (EMHC) is one instituted as an acolyte, or one of the faithful so deputed in accordance with Canon 230, § 3.[20]
Particular Law for the Diocese of Sioux City
5. Guidelines for Selection of Candidates:
a. The Pastor shall oversee the selection of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.
i. Pastors are encouraged to collaborate with other parish or school staff members in recommending candidates to serve as EMHC.
ii. Once persons have been selected to serve as EMHC, the pastor shall submit these names on the proper form, with a letter of request to the Office of Worship, which will coordinate the bishop’s approval and mandate. [The bishop, not the pastor, decides.]
iii. To avoid unnecessary confusion, all requests must be made in writing to the Office of Worship on the proper form with all of the necessary information. All requests will be processed at the beginning of each month. Any requests sent in after the first of the month will be processed the following month. The letter of request must include the full name of the person requesting the permission and the type of role that the person will fulfill (school, parish Masses, homebound/hospital/nursing home).
b. EMHCs should only be selected, approved, and mandated according to pastoral need.
c. Both men and women may be chosen as EMHC, to administer communion both at Mass, and to the sick and dying. Those who are invited to serve in this ministry shall be:
· aged 18 or older (i.e., have completed their eighteenth year),
· baptized and confirmed Roman Catholics,
· regularly sharers in the Eucharist,
· of exemplary Christian character,
· committed to the faith,
· devoted to the Eucharist,
· respected by the community,
· demonstrably interested and involved in the community’s life,
· in good standing according to the law of the Church,
· spiritually sound,
· and capable of adhering to all of the Church’s procedures for EMHCs.Those chosen must make a public profession of faith and be deemed responsible to carry out the mandate entrusted to them.
[…]
b. Guidelines for the Use of EMHCs:
i. EMHCs may distribute Holy Communion at Mass only when the ordained ministers present are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion, or when the very large numbers of the faithful present would excessively prolong the celebration if only the ordained ministers distributed Holy Communion.[21] A brief prolongation in the distribution of Holy Communion is not a sufficient reason to have more Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion than necessary.[22]
ii. “To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated – especially, extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants (they are not to enter the sanctuary until after the priest-celebrant has received communion); and the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of ‘a great number of the faithful.’”[23] [That’s the tricky point, isn’t it?]
a) The time of distributing Holy Communion should be proportional to the length of the rest of the celebration. [I would perhaps ask what that proportion is.]
[…]
V. Procedures During Mass
a. The EMHCs should not approach the altar before the priest-celebrant has received Communion, and they are always to receive from the hands of the priest-celebrant the vessel containing either species of the Most Holy Eucharist for the distribution to the faithful.[24]
i. The deacon may assist the priest in handing the vessels containing the Body and Blood of the Lord to the EMHC.[25]
b. When the distribution of Communion is finished, the priest himself consumes at the altar any consecrated wine that happens to remain; as for any consecrated hosts that are left, he either consumes them at the altar or carries them to the place designated for the reservation of the Eucharist.
i. When more of the Precious Blood remains than was necessary for Communion, and if not consumed by the bishop or priest celebrant, “the deacon immediately and reverently consumes at the altar all of the Blood of Christ that remains; he may be assisted, if need dictate, by other deacons and priests.” When there are Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, they may consume what remains of the Precious Blood from their chalice of distribution with the permission of the diocesan bishop.[26]
Particular Law for the Diocese of Sioux City
6. EMHC are granted permission to consume the remaining Precious Blood from their chalice of distribution upon returning to the altar.
7. The practice of consuming the remaining Precious Blood in the place of distribution or at the credence table or in the sacristy is not permissible.
VI. Communion to the Sick and Homebound
[…]
b. The Eucharist may only be carried to the sick and dying in a pyx. It is never to be carried in any other container, such as a handkerchief, envelope, etc. [I wonder if there are guidelines for the material the pyx is made of.]
c. It is not proper for EMHCs to the sick and to the dying to be given the consecrated host for this purpose during the Communion Rite of Holy Mass.
[…]
d. Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must take the Eucharist directly from the church to the individuals who are to receive. The Eucharist must never be taken home overnight to be distributed to the sick or dying the next day, and must never be kept in one’s vehicle nor anywhere else but a tabernacle.
[…]
VII. Communion to the Sick and to the Dying in Hospitals
VIII. Other Functions of Extraordinary Ministers
a. Ash Wednesday
i. EMHCs may distribute ashes on Ash Wednesday according to the “Order for the Blessing and Distribution of Ashes” found in chapter 32 of the Book of Blessings.
b. Saint Blaise
i. EMHCs may also bless throats on the feast of St. Blaise (Feb. 3) according to the “Order for the Blessing of Throats on the Feast of Saint Blaise” found in chapter 51 of the Book of Blessings.
IX. Conclusion
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the great King of hope and mercy, desires that all His faithful children persevere diligently in the holy and saving Catholic faith. His greatest gift to us is the Most Holy Eucharist. Praying fervently that the whole Church may grow daily in devotion and in her duty to safeguard and proclaim the sacredness of the Eucharist, I now promulgate these revised norms for the distribution and reception of Holy Communion under both kinds in the Diocese of Sioux City, and for Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. All previous versions notwithstanding. Given from the Chancery of the Diocese of Sioux City on this 24th day of June, 2011, the Solemnity of the Birth of Saint John the Baptist.
_______________________________
Most Reverend R. Walker Nickless
Bishop of Sioux City_______________________________
Deacon David A. Lopez, Ph.D.
Chancellor
From First Things:
The Present State of Our Polygamous Future
Jul 20, 2011
Joe CarterIn an interview on the science in science fiction, novelist William Gibson noted, “[T]he future is already here. It’s just not evenly distributed yet.” What Gibson meant was that the innovations in science fiction could already be found—at least in embryonic form—in our current ideas or technology. Much the same could be said about future social and legal norms concerning the institution of marriage—they are already here, they’re just not evenly distributed yet.
A prime example is the social and legal acceptance of polygamous marriage. [Not to mention contrary-to-nature acts.] The legal bulwark against polygamy was the first to go, dismantled by the Supreme Court ruling Lawrence v. Texas. “Liberty presumes an autonomy of self,” claimed Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion, “that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.”
As Justice Antonin Scalia recognized in the minority opinion, the decision could be used to legalize bigamy and would be a “massive disruption of the current social order.” Last week the New York Times featured a story about a polygamist who is suing the state of Utah to overturn its anti-polygamy law that proves Scalia a prophet:
The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses.
One man’s slippery slope is another’s ladder of progress. Homosexual activists needed over thirty years to go from Stonewall to Goodridge. But they have paved a clearer path for polygamists. And, unlike gay marriage, polygamy already has a long-standing cultural precedent. All of the major world religions—Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity—have at one time in their history condoned the practice of taking multiple spouses.The same holds true for most every culture on earth. Out of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (the practice of men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850. Even our own culture, which has an astoundingly high divorce and remarriage rate, practices a form of “serial polygamy.”
Advocates for same-sex marriage often refer to polls showing the social acceptance of homosexual relationships as a justification for expanding the definition of marriage. From this we can adduce, a fortiori, that since polygamy has an even stronger claim to historical and cultural acceptance, it should be included in the new expansion of marriage “rights.”
The appeal to “rights” also undercuts any reason to give special preference to same-sex relationships over polygamous ones. The precedents established in Lawrence and Goodridge are equally applicable to polyamorous relationships and homosexual couplings. As Scalia noted in his dissent, as long as polygamists are not violating established laws or committing child abuse, states no longer have the authority to regulate their living arrangements.
With this decriminalization comes the inevitable push for acceptance. It happened with homosexual relationships and it will happen with polyamorous ones too. And why should society deny a man the right to marry all the women he loves? What reasons do those who favor gay marriage have for excluding polygamy? Having rejected all arguments from nature and reason when they were used against their position, what do they have left to justify their discrimination? [Eventually they will push for a acceptance of bestiality and “marriage” with young children. Once they head down this path, they will try to decriminalize and then push for acceptance.]
The answer is nothing but arbitrary personal preference. Those who truly believe that homosexuals have a legal right to marry someone of the same gender have undercut the grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same. If a man can marry another man why should he be barred from marrying two or three or four men if he chooses? [Or his dog? Or his kid sister? After all, we can’t be species-ist. The degrees of consanguinity – arbitrary, right? The establishment of an age for consent is arbitrary, right? It is only a matter of time before some sickos push for the decriminalization and acceptance of these, and their choices will be aided and defended by liberals.]
Unfortunately, many advocates of same-sex marriage are coming to the same realization, and instead of reconsidering their position, they merely shrug. They agree that allowing one requires allowing the other. But for them, polygamy is at worst an unfortunate but necessary tradeoff on the path to normalizing same-sex unions.
As usual, the progressive legal scholars are ahead of the curve. Six years ago Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, made an eloquent case for the legalization of polygamy:
When the high court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas, we ended decades of the use of criminal laws to persecute gays. However, this recent change was brought about in part by the greater acceptance of gay men and lesbians into society, including openly gay politicians and popular TV characters.
Such a day of social acceptance will never come for polygamists. It is unlikely that any network is going to air The Polygamist Eye for the Monogamist Guy or add a polygamist twist to Everyone Loves Raymond. No matter. The rights of polygamists should not be based on popularity, but principle.Turley was far too morose in his assessment. It took less than a decade for Kody Brown—the polygamist plaintiff mentioned in the New York Times article—to get a reality TV show. In late 2010, TLC premiered “Sister Wives,” featuring Kody, his four “wives” (he’s legally married to only one woman), and their sixteen children. The promotional material on TLC’s website invites us to “Follow the Brown family and see how they attempt to navigate life as a ‘normal’ family in a society that shuns their polygamist lifestyle.”
After watching the entire first season I can testify that the Brown family is rather “normal”—at least by the standards of our twenty-first century “anything goes” culture. Sure, they’re a bit weird. But who isn’t nowadays? And by society’s moral logic, if you get to know someone and they seem nice and normal then you can’t condemn their lifestyle choices. As long as their flagpole is attached to a well-kept cottage, why shouldn’t they be able to let their freak flag fly?
My fellow Christians are already leading the apathetic shrug of “tolerance.” As one woman wrote on the TLC website:
First off I am not a Mormon, I am Baptist, and let me tell you, those who judge these people remember you shall be judged as you judge. This family is happy, these women all agreed to the arrangement. It is no different than a man having 4 mistresses and children by them. This way they all know about one another, there is no lying, no cheating, there is acceptance and an abundance of love. They need to be left alone to raise their children. God Bless the Browns and keep them safe.
That just about says it all, doesn’t it? [Yes. And there is no end to how dumb some people can be,]The social acceptance of polygamy is already here; it’s just not evenly distributed throughout society. At least not yet.
Joe Carter is Web Editor of First Things and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.
This story from CNA brings something to mind, which I will get to after the article…
Jakarta, Indonesia, Jul 20, 2011 / 10:24 am (CNA).- Christian churches have moved quickly to help the more than 5,000 people who have fled the volcanic eruption of Mount Lokon on the northern Indonesian island of Sulawesi.
Christian schools and church halls in Tomohon and Manado have welcomed the refugees, while other displaced persons have taken refuge in public buildings like the University of Manado.
Even as the alert level remains high, Christian volunteers are working to distribute food. Christian schools have also begun an education service to allow children to continue their lessons, Fides news agency reports.
The Diocese of Manado’s development commission has voiced concern about the large number of displaced families, who are mostly Muslims. It has appealed to all Catholic parishes and organizations so that they are “open and show solidarity, providing as much assistance as possible.”
“The local population has shown generosity and hospitality towards these brothers and sisters in need,” the diocese said.
Caritas Indonesia and the Indonesian Episcopal Conference are also assisting relief efforts.
The long-dormant volcano began rumbling on July 9. On Sunday, July 18 an eruption shot soot and debris 11,400 feet into the sky. Another two blasts took place 10 minutes apart on July 18. The larger blast sent ash as high as 2,000 feet into the air.
No injuries or damages from the Monday blasts have been reported. One person died of a heart attack during an evacuation last week.
More than 33,000 people live on the volcano’s fertile slopes, where they grow cloves and coffee. Over 10,000 were evacuated.
I saw on the news the other night that people in Minot, ND have been able to get back to their houses. One woman said that the contents of her house looked like it has been shaken around as if by a washing-machine agitator. And it has been underwater.
Do you have a plan for what to do for you and yours for when things go very very wrong? Some regions have more potential natural disasters than others, but there are always and everywhere the possibility of natural disasters. Ask people in Joplin, MO about that.
It happens to others. It can happen to you. Perhaps it already has.
And then there are the man made disasters which we could face down the line. Think Weimar Republic.
Do you have a plan?
[wp_youtube]Z-3TWdr8SD8[/wp_youtube]
His Hermeneuticalness, my friend Fr. Tim Finigan, posted about a great initiative in England. A group formed to establish a Catholic liberal arts college along the lines of Wyoming Catholic College and Thomas Aquinas College in California.
Fr. Finigan wrote:
The Benedictus Trust has been set up to found a Catholic university college in Britain, offering a traditional Liberal Arts programme of undergraduate study. Such courses can be found in the United States but as yet there is nothing similar in England. The Benedictus Trust is proposing to set up this new Catholic university college on the principles set out by Blessed John Henry Newman in The Idea of a University.
Nowadays in Britain, you can get degrees in all sorts of subjects. There doesn’t seem to be any reason why it should not be possible to get one in the liberal arts. I do hope that this project succeeds.
So do I! And if I can be of help, I will help.
WDTPRS kudos to the Benedictus Trust.
Even as blind squirrels sometimes find acorns, sometimes the National Catholic Fishwrap does something right. And it won’t surprise anyone that my friend the nearly-ubiquitous John L. Allen, Jr. was involved.
Fishwrap – rather Mr. Allen – has a long, and I do mean long, interview with the newly-appointed Archbishop of Philadelphia Most. Rev. Charles Chaput. The questions are intelligent and the answers are forthright and informative.
I warmly recommend that you read the whole thing.
And Chaput is pronounced “sha-pyew”, with a y-sound glide in it and a silent t.
Here is a sample section from the interview:
I’d like to take a rapid-fire tour of a few contentious issues. The idea is to get your basic position, without going into details. Let’s start with one you already raised: the Latin Mass.
The Latin Mass is deeply loved by some members of the church. The Holy Father, beginning with John Paul II and continued by Benedict XVI, has asked the bishops to be very sensitive to their needs. I was ordained in Rapid City in 1988, around the time that the Holy Father set up the Ecclesia Dei commission. As soon as I became aware of his desire, I welcomed the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter to Rapid City to establish a community to meet the needs of those people. There were three or four St. Pius X [break-away] communities in the diocese, but by the time I left they had all disappeared because we met their needs. In Denver, we have a full parish served by the Fraternity of St. Peter, and we have two other places where the priest, at least on occasion if not weekly, celebrates the Tridentine form of the liturgy.
I’m very happy to follow the lead of the Holy Father on all of this, because he has insights that I don’t have. He also has an inspiration from the Holy Spirit which I don’t have.
The visitation of American nuns?
It was a decision of the Holy See to do this, I guess because they received many suggestions that there was a need for this kind of visitation. I’ve been part of visitations, of seminaries and the Legion of Christ, and I think those visitations can be very good for the communities involved — as long as the people doing the visitation are really open to listening, and are loving of the people they’re called to visit in the name of Jesus Christ.
It’s always good, if serious issues are raised, to have outside eyes look at them. How the Holy Father and the Congregation for Religious will follow up on this, I don’t know. But there’s no reason to be afraid of a visitation, if it’s done well.
Communion bans for pro-choice Catholic politicians?
I think that people who make decisions contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in public ways, in matters of faith and morals, should decide for themselves not to receive communion. They’ve broken their communion with the church, and to receive communion means you’re in communion with the church. If you’re not, it’s hypocritical to receive communion.
I think the best way to handle this is the way the bishops of the United States have agreed together to handle it, which is first of all to talk personally with those individuals who make decisions contrary to the teaching of the church. If they fully understand the teaching of the church and continue to act contrary to it, we should ask them not to receive communion.
If they persistently decide to do so in a way that causes scandal, which means leading other people into the same kind of sin, then I think it’s necessary for the bishop to publicly say something.
Health care reform, the Catholic Health Association, and Obama at Notre Dame?
That’s a lot of things together. Health care, of course, is one of the things the church has done in imitation of Jesus Christ, who came to heal the sick and to drive out evil in the world. It’s very important for us to be involved, but in a way that Jesus is involved, and not to do anything at all that would contravene the teachings of the Gospel. I stood with the president of the bishops’ conference, Cardinal George, when it came to the health care bill.
I was very disappointed when the Catholic Health Association took a position that really undermined the authority of the bishops. I wish that hadn’t happened. I think it was a severe moment of lack of communion in the church. I think we ought to continue to insist that when it comes to matters of faith and morals, bishops, in the name of Jesus Christ, have to be the ones who make the final decisions.
With regard to Notre Dame, I wrote a column in our Denver Catholic paper following the example of the local bishop, Bishop D’Arcy. I was very disappointed in the decision by Notre Dame. When the bishops met in Denver in 2004, we made a decision that Catholic universities shouldn’t give honors to people who are actively engaged in promoting abortion. That has happened with the current administration, so it seems to me that it was inappropriate for Notre Dame to give the President an honorary doctorate. I’m sure the President is a good man, and that he’s following his own conscience on the matter, but it isn’t the conscience of the church and he shouldn’t be honored because of that.
Gay marriage?
This is the issue of our time. The church understands marriage as a unique relationship, with a unique definition, which is the faithful love of a man and a woman for each other, permanent, and for the sake of children. As children, if we don’t know that our parents love one another, our lives are very unstable. That’s why I think every child deserves a family where the father loves the mother, and the mother loves the father. For us to redefine marriage as anything else undermines that notion. I think it’s very important that the church keep insisting on this.
It’s also important to say that we’re not against gay people. What we’re doing here is promoting marriage and the meaning of marriage, not condemning others. The church does believe that human sexuality has a meaning in itself, that it’s about love and procreation. Any other sexual relationship is contrary to the Gospel, and so a relationship between two people of the same sex is not in line with the teachings of the church and the teachings of the Gospel, and is therefore wrong. That said, we should always respect people who do things contrary to the Gospel. We live in a society where different ways of life are accepted by the general community, and it’s important for us to live in a way that’s not hostile to people.
We have a duty as Catholics, however, to speak clearly about God’s plan for human happiness. Part of that plan is traditional, faithful, Catholic/Christian marriage.
There is a great deal more. Archbishop Chaput speaks about his own background and theological leanings. Of course there is extensive discussion of the sexual abuse crisis in Philadelphia and in general.
WDTPRS kudos to Mr. Allen and especially Archbishop Chaput.
Coat of Arms by D Burkart
A Daily Prayer for Priests
They find you a pro-life agent in your area who commits to giving a portion of the fee to a pro-life group!
PLEASE subscribe via PayPal if it is useful. Zelle and Wise are better, but PayPal is convenient.
A monthly subscription donation means I have steady income I can plan on. I put you my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I often say Holy Mass.
In view of the rapidly changing challenges I now face, I would like to add more $10/month subscribers. Will you please help?
For a one time donation...
Help Monks in Wyoming (coffee – UPDATED LINK) and Norcia (beer) and the wonderful "Soap Sisters" of Summit, NJ!
Please follow me on Twitter!
Visits tracked by Statcounter
since Sat., 25 Nov. 2006:
