Today I was answering some questions from my inbox.
A couple of my answers were kicked back to me with a permanent delivery failure.
I can only answer a fraction of the questions that come in and sometimes the questions are serious. It grieves me when they don’t go through.
Some Q&A I can’t/won’t put on the blog in public view. If I write back to an incorrect email… that’s a problem.
Please, if you write, double-check your email address.
Something curious is happening at the National Schismatic Reporter (aka Fishwrap).
Our pal Michael Sean Winters wrote about the Holy See’s hostile takeover of the LCWR in light of the keynote address to the LCWR given by Sr. Laurie Brinks. Sr. Laurie, it was reported, spoke about “moving beyond the Church”. As it turns out, Winters has interesting things to say about that and you can read them there. Effectively, he says that Brinks was misquoted and he has a point! Winters defends Brinks on that charge, but he takes her apart on something more serious.
Winters does some surprising things. For example, he gives support to more traditional sisters and goes after the LCWR for marginalizing them. HERE
Perhaps alert to the danger, [Brink] next paragraph includes some condescending remarks about more traditional religious communities, writing that “these groups are recognizing the changing atmosphere in the institutional Church, the reneging on the promises of Vatican II….They are taking seriously Pope John Paul II’s call to pursue holiness above all else.” I know some women in traditional religious communities and I do not think they would characterize their apostolate as “reneging on the promises of Vatican II.” They most certainly would agree that a central theme of Vatican II was the universal call to holiness and that, yes, they pursue such holiness above all else. Isn’t that a good thing? Or are these more traditional women mere dupes of a pre-modern worldview?
And then, even as he repeats how wonderful the LCWR is, he blasts them for giving their podium to Brinks:
When Sr. Brink does consider the “moving beyond Jesus” direction, the condescension disappears. These women who have abandoned their tradition are “courageous” and – here comes the post-modernism – “who’s to say that the movement beyond Christ is not, in reality, a movement into the very heart of God?” Well, as Sr. Brink learned, within the Catholic communion, it is the CDF that says the movement beyond Christ is not a movement to the very heart of God. It is a shame, a damned shame, that the leadership of the LCWR gave a lectern to this post-modern nonsense.
Clearly he has a beef with post-Modernism, which he sees as an enemy. There are other enemies as well, but this is a start.
Here is the money-quote from Winters:
It is true that Brinks did not advocate moving beyond Jesus. It is also true that the speech, in its entirety, is not only the kind of theological talk that is likely to catch the attention of the CDF, it is the kind of theological talk that deserves to catch the attention of the CDF.
Winters doesn’t give full endorsement to the CDF here, but he doesn’t think that what the CDF is doing is only about power or politics.
Moving on, a nanosecond after Winters posts his partial defense of what the CDF did… and that this is about doctrine, the editors of the Fishwrap issue something that seems to throw Winters under the nun-bus. It’s a long and boring editorial too! HERE
For example:
The takeover of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the result of an extended “doctrinal assessment,” knowledgeable Catholics understand has much less to do with core beliefs than with episcopal obedience. Our women religious are among those who understand this firsthand. We have all come to see too many of our prelates feel uncomfortable around women. The result is they stay away from them.
And the editorial’s money-quote:
Our women are the most theologically educated in the history of the church. The differences between their thinking and our bishops’ thinking has less to do with faith and doctrine than church structure, and more to do with applications of church teachings and mission.
The very point Tom Fox and the editorial staff are defending, is precisely what Michael Sean Winters rightly took apart.
Basically the NSR says that the CDF is involved in a powerplay of men against women.
This is about doctrine and not politics or male-power games.
Winters sees that and I, for one, agree with him.
Today is the anniversary of the election of Benedict XVI as Supreme Pontiff.
Remember how people buzzed about the fact that the newly-elected Benedict obviously was wearing a black long-sleeved sweater under his new white cassock rather than double-cuffs and cufflinks?
Bzzzzz… bzzzzz… bzzzzz…
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Where were you? What were your thoughts at the time?
I was in Rome, on an uncomfortable chair, with an earpiece in my ear and extremely bright lights in my eyes in front of cameras for Fox News, covering the conclave with Chris Wallace and Greg Burke.
When the Cardinal Deacon said “Josephum”, I almost wrenched Burke’s arm out of its socket.
Here is a photo of the TV screen someone shot and sent me at the time… it is really unflattering (my hairline is receding, but hasn’t been quite that routed yet… not that that matters much), but… the smile was accurate.
Some time ago I wrote:
Imagine being 76 with a flare up of sciatica and, on your election as Pope, being told, “Here, Your Holiness, change into these new shoes and then stand a long time while we greet you and then walk around and show yourself in public for the first time.” I’d say that’s an argument for the sedia. Francis, however, probably thought, “I’ll stick with my old shoes, thanks very much.”
Now I read this on CNA:
Pope phones Argentine shoemaker for shoe repairs
Vatican City, Apr 18, 2013 / 01:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Pope Francis, who has quickly become known for his austere style, will continue using his simple black shoes and has called his shoemaker from his hometown of Buenos Aires, Argentina to repair them.
For 40 years, 81 year-old Carlos Samaria has provided shoes from his store on the outskirts of the Argentine capital for Pope Francis, who was known before his election to the papacy as Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio.
“Hello Samaria, it’s Bergoglio,” the phone conversation began.
“But who is this?” the shoemaker responded with surprise.
“Samaria, it’s Francis, the Pope!” the Holy Father replied.
According to Vatican Radio’s Brazilian program, [And who know what that means for the actual wording in English here…] the Holy Father told Samaria, “No red shoes, make them black like usual.”
Samaria said the shoes Pope Francis wears “are simple and made of black leather, with a smooth toe and no decorations.
“If you were to grab one of the Pope’s shoes it would feel like a clog, without any adornment but with laces,” the shoemaker explained.
“He doesn’t want new shows, only that I fix his old ones,” Samaria said.
However, he added that he is planning to “make a new but simple pair to be ready for him when he says I can visit, in May.”
Again, it doesn’t strike me as strange that a 76 year old with pain walking would stick with shoes that he knows.
On the other hand, he is now Bishop of Rome, not Buenos Aires. Italians… well… they know nothing about shoes, do they. I could walk you to several cobblers, as a matter of fact.
On the sidebar of this blog there is a feed of the Cardinal Newman Society. I picked this up from their feed. Go look at the sidebar!
Cardinal Wuerl Supports George Washington University Chaplain
April 18, 2013, at 10:06 AM | By Tim Drake |Catholic News Agency reports that during a recent homily with George Washington University students, Archdiocese of Washington’s Cardinal Donald Wuerl expressed his support for Father Greg Shaffer, the chaplain who has faced hostility for upholding the Church’s teachings on sexuality.
“I want to offer a word of support and encouragement to your chaplain, Father Greg Shaffer…and to stand in solidarity with a good priest,” Cardinal Wuerl said on April 14.
Two homosexual students at the University have launched a campaign to oust the priest because he counseled that those with same-sex attraction should remain celibate.
“We propose the ways of the kingdom of God in terms that the world can understand and examine, in terms they may freely accept or reject,” said Cardinal Wuerl. “Even when they said to him you need to be current, you need to be contemporary, you need to be politically correct, you need to be with the times, Jesus did not say, ‘Oh, then, I will change my teaching.’”
“Thank you for standing up for the freedom to speak our faith and thank you for standing up for your chaplain,” Cardinal Wuerl concluded. “God bless him and all of you.”
Catholic Education Daily is an online publication of The Cardinal Newman Society. Click here for email updates and free online membership with The Cardinal Newman Society.
Fr Z kudos to Fr. Shaffer and Card. Wuerl.
Some days ago Archbp. Alan Vigneron of Detroit stirred the anthill (which is what bishops are supposed to do when it comes to faith and morals). He reaffirmed that Catholics who actively, publicly promote unnatural, same-sex “marriage” are acting in contradiction to the Catholic Faith they otherwise claim to support. Therefore, being in interior conflict with the Faith and being in open, public conflict with the Faith, they should not receive Holy Communion. Archbp. Vigneron did not say that, from that time onward, Communion would be denied to public supporters of immoral things. He likened their choice to receive as perjury.
It seems to me that Vigneron simply asked them to be honest with themselves and the Church they profess they belong to. He asked them to act like adults rather than self-centered children. (My words, not his.) For more see HERE and HERE
Over at Catholic Vote Stephen Kokx looks at how the mainstream media has weighed in, with the collaboration of liberal Catholcis. The MSM, using liberal Catholics in support, tries to turn people against the Church and portray Archbp. Vigneron and all who agree with him as a knuckle-dragging “gay”bashers. They drag the issue away from the spiritual and doctrinal into the ditch of the political.
Let’s have a look with my emphases and comments.
DETROIT ARCHBISHOP TRIES TO SAVE SOULS; MAINSTREAM MEDIA NOT HAPPY.
Since when do outlets like Slate, Huffington Post, CNN, Esquire, and USA Today care about who receives Holy Communion? They rarely, if ever, concern themselves with the inner-workings of Jewish or Muslim worship services. [Because hating Catholics is the last acceptable prejudice.] Well, since Detroit Archbishop Allen Vigneron said Catholics who support redefining marriage should not receive Holy Communion, a number of secular news outlets have seen to it to let their readers know just how unpopular some Catholics think his decision is.
Here’s what Archbishop Vigneron said that’s got everybody up in arms:
For a Catholic to receive holy Communion and still deny the revelation Christ entrusted to the church is to try to say two contradictory things at once: ‘I believe the church offers the saving truth of Jesus, and I reject what the church teaches.’ In effect, they would contradict themselves. This sort of behavior would result in publicly renouncing one’s integrity and logically bring shame for a double-dealing that is not unlike perjury.
Some Catholics respond to a situation like this by arguing Holy Communion should not be used as a political weapon. If a politician who promotes principles antithetical to Church teaching presents themselves for Communion, they should not be denied, because ultimately it is God who will decide if that politicians’ actions are right or wrong. Not the priest.
This argument is wrong on a number of fronts. Archbishop Vigneron oversees the Archdiocese of Detroit, home to 1.3 million Catholics. That’s 1.3 million souls he is responsible for getting into heaven. It’s a responsibility I would not want to have at this point in my life. As the Book of James reminds us, “not many of you should become teachers… for you will be judged more strictly.” [I am glad he brought in this point about cura animarum… the care of souls.]
As such, Archbishop Vigneron is responsible for doing everything he can to make sure those 1.3 million Catholics are not in danger of losing their souls to eternal damnation. He will be judged more strictly for his actions than the rest of us. Therefore, he is responsible for making sure, among other things, that the deposit of faith is upheld. He is also responsible for making sure those 1.3 million Catholics are able to go to confession on a regular basis, that they are able to attend Mass as frequently as possible, and that they are in a state of grace while attending Mass so they can worthily receive Holy Communion, lest they further compound their sins and offend God even more.
Outlets like Esquire and the Huffington Post are trying to turn this into a political issue by arguing Catholics can support redefining marriage if their conscience tells them, and that this is nothing more than a conservative Archbishop trying to punish liberal Catholics. [When liberals play the “political” card when they advocate dissent, they are helping the Church’s enemies. Some, like Sr. Simone Campbell, do so pretty openly, as she did HERE.]
Nothing could be further from the truth.
[… The analysis continues with Ed Peters, the canonist… ]
Be that as it may, the Detroit Free Press made Peters seem like he was but one of a handful of supporters of Archbishop Vigneron’s statement. The Free Press quotes Fr. Thomas Reese of Georgetown University as saying “Most American bishops do not favor denying either politicians or voters Communion [Notice how he conflates “politicians” (who are public figures) with “voters” (who usually are not).] because of their positions on controversial issues.” Fr. Reese added that only about “30 or so bishops have said that pro-choice or pro-gay-marriage Catholics should not present themselves for Communion.” [A good example of governing the Church by polling and what the majority think. Never mind right or wrong.]
Again, by citing Fr. Reese, the Free Press is attempting to undermine Archbishop Vigneron and Peters’ arguments. But as Peters points out on his blog, Fr. Reese’s statement is misleading: “Reese is commenting on how bishops act whereas I am commenting on how canon law expects bishops and others to act. Reese’s claim about bishops’ (in)action, even if true, would not make my views (actually, the 1983 Code’s views, resting on settled Church teaching) wrong, it would simply mark them as ignored.” [Exactly.]
Interestingly enough, CNN also makes it seem like Peters – who[m] Esquire calls a “nuisance” and claims is merely relying on his own opinions and not Canon Law – is on the wrong side of history. At the end of the CNN article, readers are conveniently reminded that “a majority of Catholics, according to polling, disagree with [Peters’] view of Communion.” To which I would respond, thank God we don’t decide what is right and wrong in the Catholic Church based on polling data. [“politics” and “polling”]
In an effort to make Peters and Archbishop Vigneron appear even more off base, Slate interviewed the reliably left-leaning Michael Sean Winters. “The principal threat to our Catholic teaching about traditional marriage is not gay marriage,” Winters argued. “The principal threat [to our Catholic teaching about traditional marriage] is divorce.
[…]
During a wartime, hostile occupation, there will always be collaborators.
Go there and see the rest.
On this day 43 years ago, the Command Module Odyssey splashed down.
Apollo XIII
I remember – as if it were yesterday – being glued to the TV watching the coverage of this glorious disaster. It was inspiring.
But we don’t have a manned space flight program anymore… do we….
UPDATE:
I can’t help but post a couple videos…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAmsi05P9Uw&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhoXFVQsIxw&feature=player_embedded
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:
