“Catholic” MSM pundits and getting things dead wrong

TIME is at it again, this time with the help of Tim Padgett.

Padgett is typical of so many self-professed "Catholic" MSM pundits.  Twitter

Keeping in mind that some of Padgett’s assertions are by now cliché, use this as a workshop for clarifying your own future discussions and have a patient look with my emphases and comments:

The Vatican and Women: Casting the First Stone

By Tim Padgett

What a rich coincidence we Roman Catholics got to experience at Mass on Sunday, July 18. The scheduled Gospel passage was Luke’s story about Jesus visiting the sisters Martha and Mary of Bethany (who Catholic tradition says was Mary Magdalene). Many biblical scholars believe the narrative shows Jesus encouraging Mary to assume the role of a disciple, [That’s okay.  She is sitting at the Lord’s feet in the manner of a disciple.] like Peter and the guys. [Nooo… he goes to the zoo on that.  But move along.] That notion lent some cable-news significance to the reading — coming as it did just days after the Vatican issued an avowal, as obtuse as it was malicious, [Could be a self-description.] that ordaining women into the priesthood was a sin on par with pedophilia. [Again, anyone who actually read and understood what the Holy See did by issuing the new norms, and who is honest about them, knows that that is not what happened.]

Rome’s misogynous declaration, tossed into its new guidelines on reporting clerical sexual abuse, did more than just highlight the church’s hoary horror at the idea of female priests — or its penchant of late for sticking its papal slippers in its mouth every chance it gets. [Blah blah blah… keep reading…]  It also pointed up an increasingly spiteful rhetoric of bigotry. [Look in the mirror, Padgett… but keep reading…] When Argentina in mid-July legalized gay marriage, the country’s Catholic bishops weren’t content to simply denounce the legislation; they used the occasion to argue for the subhumanity of homosexual men and lesbians, the way many white Southern preachers weren’t ashamed to degrade African Americans during the civil rights movement. Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio not only called the new law "a scheme to destroy God’s plan"; he termed it "a real and dire anthropological throwback," as if homosexuality were evolutionarily inferior to heterosexuality. [I don’t think many people would consider it a dire anthropological throwback to say that homosexuality is actually evolutionarily inferior to normal sexuality.  Think about it.]

U.S. bishops haven’t been much kinder on this issue, [Here he is starting to reveal the deeper flaws.  We know every verse of the tired mantra by now: Homophobia! Blah Blah… Misogyny!  Blah Blah….  Here the writer starts showing a more fundamental problem with his views.] which is all t he more regrettable since they were among the civil rights movement’s champions. But that was a half-century ago, when the church’s tone was influenced by humane thinkers like the Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray. Bergoglio and many American prelates today are simply parroting their new Pope, Benedict XVI, who in 2008 said saving humanity from homosexuality was as crucial as rescuing rain forests from lumberjacks. [?] And did we mention this papacy’s disastrous p.r. with Jews and Muslims? [NB: "P.R." There is another hint at his fundamental error.]

How did it come to this? The answer lies in why the Vatican felt compelled to throw its antifemale jab into the sexual-abuse directives. [Remember: On this point he is working from a flawed premise.  The new norms are not in fact what he says they are.  He is simply wrong.] When any institution is as convinced of its own moral infallibility as the Catholic Church is, it tends to lash out at criticism — especially charges as serious as the priestly rape of children — with Dostoyevskian paranoia. [Doesn’t that sound a bit hysterical to you?] And the church then fortifies its less popular stances, like an all-male priesthood or the condemnation of gays, [The Church doesn’t condemn
homosexuals.  The Church condemns sin.  Again, the writer is either poorly informed or mendacious.  But this is all very tiresome.  We still have to get to the real flaw.]
in the process becoming even more uncompromising. [And HERE WE GO!  Read more carefully now… ] Most Catholics, according to polls in the U.S. and abroad, support women’s ordination, but the church peevishly views that trend as an insidious subagenda of its sexual-abuse accusers. Hence last week’s astonishing aside from Rome that both the ordination of female priests and pedophilia are graviora delicta, or grave crimes. [Padgett does not understand what it is to be Catholic.  He thinks that the Church, like a political party with a platform, is to be guided by polls or votes or the majority view, etc.  Leave aside the other stupidity is what he is saying, which is just factually wrong.  Padgett doesn’t get what it means to be Catholic.]

The real offense is the church’s theological sophistry. Its argument for keeping women out of the priesthood — Jesus had no female apostles — is as shamefully bogus as it is unjust. [And Padgett thinks this…. why?  Is is just so because he says it is?] The hierarchy, threatened by claims of Mary Magdalene’s ministerial status, [ROFL! Okay… he has staggered into the DaVinci Code crowd here… but don’t lose sight of his more fundamental error.  This is all a sideshow to his real problem.] has long tried to identify her with the unnamed "woman caught in adultery" in the Gospel of St. John. When that woman was dragged before Jesus for judgment — death by stoning, the men demanded — Christ famously said, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." The church wants us to embrace that compassionate teaching when it comes to pedophile priests, and yet it is deaf enough to cast stones at the "crime" of female priests.  [See how this is all just wasted effort?  Keep going and be patient.]

What’s at stake is the Catholic Church’s ability to salvage any moral authority from the sexual-abuse tragedy. The fact is, it can still do that without ordaining women. But it can’t do it while digging itself a deeper hole like a defendant hurling insults at a judge. It can’t do it by excommunicating a hospital nun, as an Arizona bishop recently did, because she signed off on an abortion that saved a mother’s life. It can’t do it by losing sight of the difference between dogged traditionalism and mean-spirited obscurantism, as it so often does these days. [How are we going to do it?  Hurray! Tell us!]

[Here we go!] And it’s sounding that way to Catholics as much as it is to non-Catholics. Many if not most of us Catholics remain Catholics today not because of the church’s leadership but in spite of it. [That was a key phrase and we will return to it when we are done with this wearying slog.] In a new Gallup poll, 62% of U.S. Catholics say gay relationships are morally acceptable. [That doesn’t surprise me in the least.  I wouldn’t be surprised if a poll said 90% say that.  The response must be "So what."] Which means we’re not thrilled to have our religion represented by a bunch of homophobes wearing miters. [THERE.  Another point.  Leave aside the stupid cliches.  He is focused on leadership.  His idea of leadership has more to do with personality and popularity than anything else.] Even those of us who sharply disagree with the church on a number of doctrinal issues still want to believe it can be a helpful, contemplative guide in matters spiritual and social. [The Church is less a divinely instituted means of salvation than it is an man-guided instrument of social change.] But if it keeps up the hateful discourse, it will lose whatever modicum of attention my generation of Catholics still pays it [There it is again.] — and it can forget about my children’s generation.

My daughter happened to be serving as an altar girl at Mass on Sunday. [That was a mistake from the beginning… but go one.] She was smart enough to sense that in the gospel reading, Jesus was relating to Mary as if she were a disciple. [Surrrre she was.  I’ll give you odds that at the end of Mass she, like most of the people in the congregation, couldn’t remember what the reading was.] And she’ll learn that the New Testament is full of other passages that indicate Jesus believed women could be alteri Christi, or "other Christs," [Theology is obviously not this guy’s strong point.] as priests often call themselves. Real Catholicism encourages that kind of enlightened thinking — and it certainly doesn’t call it, as the Catholic Church does, a crime. [Women’s ordination = enlightened thinking.  That’s what he thinks is important.  But his thought is so sloppy I am not sure that he actually knows what he is doing here.]

The writer doesn’t understand what it means to be a Catholic.

Look at the claim that, "most of us Catholics remain Catholics today not because of the church’s leadership but in spite of it".

Every one of us must respond with a resounding:

GOOD! 

You are not supposed to remain Catholic because of the Church’s leadership!

Who says the "leadership" merits anything in the end?  (And note that "leadership" reflects the lens of party politics through which he interprets the Church – e.g., "Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a devout Catholic, and other members of the House leadership today asserted that…").

We are not a political party.  We are not caught up in the trap of personality or popularity that "Catholics" like this have slowly fallen into.

Catholics belong to the Holy Church of Jesus.  He saved us.  He is the only one who merits anything.  We belong to Holy Church because we are sinners and because the Church was Christ’s gift to us, and because the Church teaches the truth with Christ’s authority and dispenses the sacraments, the ordinary means of our salvation.

Through history we have had to choose to be Catholics in spite of our leadership, which is now and always has been made up of flawed sinners in need of a Savior.

Leave aside that our Catholic "leadership" is not nearly as bad as Padgett wants you to believe. 

But look what this fellow has done.  Look at his dependence on polling.

If polling says that 62% of Catholics think that an active homosexual lifestyle is acceptable, all that proves – even if we accept the accuracy of the poll – is that 62% of Catholics are wrong.

Catholic don’t do faith and morals by polls.

I wouldn’t be surprised if more than 62% believe that homosexuality is okay… or that abortion is okay.  I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of people think women should be ordained.

Why? I believe in Original Sin.  People getting important things dead wrong doesn’t surprise me at all. We are good at that all by ourselves.

This is why we have a Church founded by Christ with a hierarchy and Magisterium.

To Padgett’s point that we have lost a lot of people.  Sure, we have!  We have lost a lot of people.  Cf. John 6:67.  It’s right there in the New Testament.

Our the answer is not to become a cafeteria, as Padgett and his enlightened crowd suggest. 

That has been tried, and it is called the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, etc.

Saying that homosexual actions are acceptable in anyway is not going to get the younger generation back to church.  Saying that women should be ordained is not going to get young people back to church.  Saying that majorities should guide doctrine is not going to fix anything. 

Returning to Padgett’s problem with our "leadership", consider the shocking things you can find in the New Testament if you really look:

  • Jesus ordained Judas knowing that Judas would betray Him.
  • Jesus knew Peter would deny Him and ordained him anyway.
  • Two traitors in one ordination!

Should Jesus resign His ministry?

Padgett’s reasoning ends in rejection the very "leadership" of Christ Jesus Himself and replaces Him with a populist figure, probably of ambiguous sexual identity, whose message is guided by weekly polling. 

Holy Church is not a political party, to be guided by polls.  Her members are not perfect.  It is our lack of perfect that requires us to belong to the Church, which teaches the truth in spite of her membership’s and leadership’s mistakes.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
73 Comments

Video tour through the famous Loome Theological Bookseller in Minnesota

The other day I had a trip to one of the most tantalizing places I know … Loome Theological Bookseller in Stillwater, MN.

Video tour through the famous Loome Theological Bookseller in Minnesota

Allow me to give you a little video tour of the place!

As you can see they have just about everything. 

Here is a little treasure in the liturgical books area.

A zip-up French daily hand missal for the older form of Mass, perfect condition, printed in 1962.

Video tour through the famous Loome Theological Bookseller in Minnesota

Video tour through the famous Loome Theological Bookseller in Minnesota

Video tour through the famous Loome Theological Bookseller in Minnesota

Video tour through the famous Loome Theological Bookseller in Minnesota

Video tour through the famous Loome Theological Bookseller in Minnesota

This is just a single little treasure.

I was grateful for the full tour.

If you need something, even if it isn’t hard to find, consider Loome’s.

Their blog.

Their store.

Posted in Just Too Cool, On the road | Tagged
12 Comments

More hijinx about the Holy Father saying the old Mass

I hope the Holy Father does, in fact, say the older form of Mass whenever it pleases.

The Pope of Rome should be able to use the Roman Rite when it pleaseth His Holiness of our Lord.

The other day the story got out that SSPX Bp. Fellay said that the Pope says the older form of Mass.  As if he knows.  Riiiight?

The Catholic Herald has this with my emphases and comments:

So the Pope says the old Mass privately? Well, probably not

The Vatican seems to have denied the story in 2007. Plus, there is footage of the Pope celebrating Mass, in the Ordinary Form, in his private chapel

By Stuart Reid

According to Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the SSPX, the Pope says the old rite of Mass privately. (Hat tip to Fr Z at WDTPRS.) [Hey… I just passed it along with observations.]

This story has been around for some time, but is it true? Probably not.  [And Mr. Reid knows, right?   I like Mr. Reid btw!]

So far as I can make out the story first appeared in Catholic World News on July 16, 2007. Beneath the headline “Pope Benedict uses older ritual for his private Mass”, CWN reported:

“Pope Benedict XVI, who recently issued a Motu Proprio allowing all Catholic priests to celebrate the old Latin Mass, uses the older ritual himself for his private Mass, CWN has learned.

“Informed sources at the Vatican have confirmed reports that the Holy Father regularly celebrates Mass using the 1962 Roman Missal.”

That story is still being presented as news today, but think about it for a moment. CWN says it “has learned” that the Pope says the old Mass. No, it hasn’t. All it has learned is that unnamed sources have “confirmed reports” that he does so. Not the same thing at all.

The day after CWN released its story, the Vatican declared that the story was not true.

According to the Catholic News Service (CNS):

“Claims that the Pope celebrates his private Mass using the Tridentine rite are incorrect, Jesuit Fr Federico Lombardi told Catholic News Service July 17.”

Fr Lombardi is the director of the Vatican press office, and seems an honest man. It is hard to believe anyway that if the rumours had been true, the Vatican (and therefore ultimately the Pope) would have denied them.  [I am developing sympathy for Fr. Lombardi, but I don’t think he knows anything about this… unless he is in the Pope’s chapel each morning.]

Fr Lombardi suggested that there may have been some confusion about the Pope’s liturgical customs because footage had been issued of the Pope saying Mass facing the altar in his private chapel, where the altar is against a wall.  [Puhleez… I think Bp. Fellay knows the difference between the older form of Mass and the newer.]

Here is a clip of the Pope saying Mass in his private chapel (though whether it is the one issued by the Vatican I do not know). The Mass is the Novus Ordo. The Pope is concelebrating in Italian, and a woman gives one of the readings. [Mr. Reid… what does that prove?]

Does that mean that Bishop Fellay is fibbing? Absolutely not. Bishop Fellay is an honest man. It may be however that from time to time, like so many of us, he believes what he wants to believe. [Fair enough.] Perhaps also passionate traditionalists are too fond of secrets. They tend to live in a world where nothing is as it seems. [Huh?  I think the same can be asserted about the liberals as well.] So the Pope says the old Mass “privately”, and therefore secretly.  [If this revolves around the word "secret" I think we will get lost in the weeds.  The fact is that Pope Benedict doesn’t have lots of visitors come each morning for his own Mass in the morning. I am not sure that that makes it "secret".]

Has CWS ever corrected its original story? I cannot find a correction. If I am wrong about all this, if Bishop Fellay is right and the Pope does say the old Mass privately, I will immediately post a correction. It may be, after all, that the Pope has started to say the old rite in private since the Vatican issued its denial.  [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]

Posted in SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
51 Comments

McBrien wants the bishops to endorse Obamacare

I am tired of writing that Richard McBrien doesn’t get it when it comes to abortion.

He does get it.

Face facts. McBrien wants the bishops to endorse Obamacare

Richard McBrien supports “a woman’s right to choose.”

He should simply say it openly instead of writing articles pretending to be a Catholic.

McBrien’s latest article asks why – why oh why? – the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference won’t drop its opposition to Obamacare. 

After all… the President signed an executive order banning federal funding for elective abortions, right?!?  The President, the President himself, promised he would sign it in order to get Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) and other so-called Prolife Democrats in the House of Representatives to agree to the Senate bill.

You remember all of this. We went through it ad nauseum in December and January.

Recap:

Legal experts and the National Right to Life Committee warned at the time that any U.S. federal court could easily strike down an executive order when it conflicted with the intentions of a law of this nature passed by Congress.

The U.S. bishops didn’t fall for the President’s feint.

But the nuns did.

Remember how it went?

The CHA, Network, the National Catholic Reporter (sic), and other liberal nuns’ groups – who could not wait to endorse Obamacare – did so in that nanosecond after the President cut the deal with Stupak and provided cover for “Prolife Democrats” (the term is an oxymoron).

McBrien wants the bishops to endorse Obamacare.

McBrien want to support this legislation in order to the get the nuns off the hook for having done so.
Twitter
They stand – all of them – stand in stark opposition to the bishops.

McBrien wants the bishops to endorse the magisterium of nuns who in their “relational wisdom” endorsed federal funding of abortion.

McBrien also defended the Phoenix nun who authorized a direct abortion in a Catholic hospital.

See the pattern?

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras, SESSIUNCULA | Tagged ,
28 Comments

Protect the Pope.com

Biretta tip to His Hermeneuticalness

Protect the Pope.com

Protect the Pope.com is a new website which counters attacks on Pope Benedict’s reputation and integrity, and provides information and resources for Catholics to respond to incidents that constitute incitement to religious hatred.

At the launch of Protect the Pope.com Rev Nick Donnelly, a permanent deacon of Lancaster Diocese who set up the site, said:

‘Its been said that anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice, and in a way we Catholics have colluded in this by ignoring it, hoping it will go away. But the personal attacks on Pope Benedict in the run up to the Papal visit show us its not going away.

Since 2006 we’ve had the legal right to protect ourselves from religious hatred. Of course people in this country have freedom of expression, but this does not mean they have the right to create a climate of hostility and fear. It’s a question of protecting our human rights to freedom of belief and freedom of worship.’

The website gives information on the law regarding hate crime and provides Catholics with the means to report to the police incitement to religious hatred or acts of religious hatred which take place during the Holy Father’s visit. The website also has an anti-Catholicism log tied into its news feed to help raise awareness of anti-Catholic prejudice.

 

And don’t forget your

 

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
7 Comments

Islamic Standard (UK) provokes protests against Pope

At the National Catholic Register (the Catholic paper), Matthew Archbold has the following.

My emphases and comments:

Is the Pope In Danger?

by Matthew Archbold Monday, July 19, 2010 6:02 AM Comments

I’ve been saying recently that Pope Benedict XVI is heading into enemy territory in “Post-Christian” England. Sadly, I may be more right than I imagined.

A member of British Parliament says he fears violence at an open air mass with Pope Benedict XVI after an Islamic publication called Muslims to attend the Mass to convert Catholics and “tell the Pope in no uncertain terms what Muslims think of his evil slanders against the last Prophet of God and his message.”

I think it’s the “in no uncertain terms” that’s making some a little nervous. Oh, the same publication also called the Pope “evil.”

The Islamic Standard writes:

    “A change of venue gives Birmingham Muslims a chance to tell the Pope just what they think of him after his insults against the Prophet Muhammad… As well as this chance to challenge these evil words of this evil Pope, [Imagine what would happen were The Catholic Herald to write something along that line about even the least of Imams in, say, Little Whinging.] over 80,000 Catholics from all over the UK are also expected to attend the open air ceremony….We hope Muslims can be there to meet him as well and to also call people away from the shirk of worshipping the dead like the Catholics do, [I thought even Muslims believed that Christ was … oh… never miiiiind….] calling out to them for help and intercession…The Birmingham event however brings the pope and who worship him into direct contact with the the large Muslim population of Birmingham and offers them the perfect chance to learn about Islam and for the Muslims to forbid the Munkar of worshipping dead men and following the dictates of the sodomite child molesting Church of Rome…  [How old was their Prophet’s wife again?]

    We at the Islamic Standard hope the Muslims of Birmingham take this duel opportunity to give Da’wah to these 80,000 travelling disbelievers, [I believe the less fashionable word is INFIDEL!] whilst at the same time telling the Pope in no uncertain terms what Muslims think of his evil slanders against the last Prophet of God and his message.

MP Khalid Mahmood fears that this call may be an incitement to violence. He’‘s quoted in British newspapers saying: “These supposed Muslims are doing all they can to incite violence. Sadly, if Muslims do turn up and preach at Catholics it could easily turn to violence…The police should look at the comments on this site because they can only serve to increase tensions and perhaps even cause riots on the day.”

This news is especially worrisome in that, according to YNET news,: eight residents of the northern city of Nazareth were arrested on weapons charges and discussing murdering Jews, soldiers, and the Pope.

Let’s hope and pray that all turns out well for Pope Benedict XVI in England.

Anyone else starting to think that “Post-Christian Europe” might actually mean “Anti-Christan Europe?”

If anything in the least violent happens in regard to the Pope during his visit, I think this will backfire on the Islamicist fringe which provoked it.

Wise conversation with someone has brought me to the view that there is probably less tolerance in the UK than in the USA.  If there is violent protest against Pope Benedict, the average Brit will probably develop a softer spot for the old Pope of Rome.

Certain hard-liners are probably using this opportunity to raise some money.   It’s expensive running a fringe group, after all. 

Posted in The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Throwing a Nutty |
83 Comments

What Does The Cricket Really Say?

What Does The Cricket Really Say?I had an interesting question via email from a reader.

I suppose this has something to do with a) interest in the way people who speak different languages name the sounds animals make b) the coming of summer.

QUAERITUR: What is the Latin for the sounds crickets make?

Good question.

In English we say, I think, that crickets "chirp".

But birds also "chirp".  They tweet as well, which gave rise to my saying that I send out "pipata" via Twitter.  (Latin pipata, or "tweets" from pipio "to twitter, chirp").  Follow me on Twitter, btw.

But crickets do something else.

In Latin a cricket is a gryllus or variously grillus.  In Italian we still say grillo.

The preferred verb used by ancient writers (cf. Pliny, Catullus) for the chirping of a cricket is strideo.  Grylli strident.

Your personal copy of the mighty Lewis & Short Dictonary divulges with just a few flips of its invaluable pages that strideo means "to make or utter any harsh, shrill, hissing, whistling, grating, or creaking sound; to creak, hiss, whizz, whistle, rattle, buzz".

TwitterThe verb strideo calls to mind the harrowing image brought given us by the Lord Himself who said, of those who wind up on the wrong side of judgment, that they will wind up in a place where – in the darkness – there is the sound of weeping and stridor dentium… the creaking sound made when you grind your teeth together… very hard.  Fletus et stridor dentium. Luke 13.

But back to our happy little crickets who strident all the time, and even tell us the temperature.

A cricket or grasshopper or cicacda, all of whom strident, are described in the act of chirping with the adjectives argutus… arguti, or even garruli.   Garruli strident grylli, ut nobis de calore nuntient.

So, that, friends, is that about the sound crickets make in Latin.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, SESSIUNCULA | Tagged
16 Comments

OpEd piece for the Washington Post

TwitterSome of the commentators who have added their opinions in the combox after my OpEd in WaPo really need your help.

A few contributors can both read and think, but there are some deeply confused people over there.  And a couple are simply wackos to be ignored.

They go on and on (I am pretty sure few of them actually read the piece or thought about it for 15 seconds) about how the Church didn’t do this or that or some other thing, how the Church missed an opportunity, about how wicked or medieval the Church is because it won’t do what they think it should, etc.

The newest rounds of norms issued by the Holy See were revisions to an existing document.  The document had its own purpose and scope.   The document’s norms were restricted to the purpose of the document.

Those who are criticizing it for not having done A, B or C, miss the point.

And there are any number of other errors they are making.

Here are some their remarkable contributions:

  • The Church’s failure to take strong enough steps to completely eradicate pedophilia by priests is the same thing as condoning it…
  • … without sin the Catholic Church would lose control of its followers.
  • Again, the church has zero concept of humanity.
  • The absolute hatred of women in the Church is so obvious.
  • Look at how irrelevant your Church is, your words are, and your credibility has become. Your commentary made me ill.
  • It’s amazing to me that anyone who has ever read the Bible could imagine the Catholic Church is in any way affiliated with the Christian religion.

Go help them out, respectfully and concisely and keep it very simple for them.

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged , , ,
32 Comments

What’ll they think of next?

Those wacky geeks at MIT… what’ll they think of next?

Play video

Posted in Just Too Cool | Tagged
10 Comments

US Catholic goes to the zoo about the new “graviora delicta” norms

You perhaps won’t be surprised if Bryan Cones of the über-liberal US Catholic threw a little nutty about the CDF’s new norms concerning graviora delicta, "exceptionally serious crimes".

Here is the piece in all is wondrous weirdness with my emphases and comments:

Sex abuse and women’s ordination?
Friday, July 9, 2010
By Bryan Cones

Great news from the Vatican, according to Catholic News Service: New norms against the sexual abuse of children will double length of time a victim has to bring charges from 10 to 20 years after the victim’s 18th birthday. It will also extend the penalties for sexual abuse of children to those who abuse the mentally disabled.

Bad news: The new norms will simultaneously add to the list of grave offenses against the sacrament of holy orders the "attempted ordination of women." Seriously?  [Yes.  This is about graviora delicta, right?]

Why is that bad? First, the "attempted ordination of women" already brings with it automatic excommunication, so making it one of the "delicta graviora" is redundant. [No, it doesn’t.  The writer fails to understand that these norms make it possible to expedite the process for clerics who participate.] Second, it conflates two completely separate issues, and in effect, [watch this stunning piece of reasoning…]  or at least in the minds of many people who will read the news, seems to equate the "attempted ordination of women" with the rape and torture of children.  [He neither understood the document nor understood the explanation given during the press conference.  Read my piece on the site of the Washington Post for a simple explanation.  And, btw, in their wisdom WaPo changed the title of my piece and now everyone is obsessing about the word "logic".  The real, original title was: "The Vatican’s new norms safeguard faith, morals and sacraments".  Go over there and read some of the truly hate-filled comments from the liberals.]

[Let the real nutty begin!] Quite frankly, it is an outrage to pair the two, a complete injustice [Don’t you love hyperbole?] to connect the aspirations of some women among the baptized [Ooooo!  Poor things!] to ordained ministry with what are some of the worst crimes that can be committed against the least of Christ’s members. [But, Mr. Cones, that is not what the new norms do!]

Furthermore, if I were a member or supporter of the Roman Catholic Womenpriests movement, I would be opening a bottle of champagne right now. [I recommend Veuve Clicquot.] The Vatican has in effect given legitimacy and momentum to what is still an incredibly tiny movement with this clumsy legal manuver, tantamount to the United States dropping a nuclear weapon on Luxembourg – only more ridiculous because this will do absolutely no damage to women’s ordination movement. [Indeed! Tens of wymyn will now be even more inspired to get out there and get ordained!] It is more like a gift. None of those women are afraid of excommunication any longer; indeed, it is now the Vatican that appears fearful. [Not afraid of excommunication?  Okay… I hope that’ll see them though that whole dying and judgment thingy.  Personally, I think they are in for an ugly surprise.]US Catholic goes to the zoo about the new "graviora delicta" norms

[The nutty continues…] This decision boggles the mind: [Is it really that hard for you to grasp what really happened?] The faithful have been justly demanding for nearly a decade clear guidelines for dealing with the sexual abuse of children, along with just punishments for both offenders and bishops who have abetted these crimes. What we have gotten is half of what we have been asking for (still no sanctions for bishops), [I think the writer missed something, namely: "§ 2. With regard to the delicts mentioned above in § 1, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by mandate of the Roman Pontiff, may judge Cardinals, Patriarchs, Legates of the Apostolic See, Bishops as well as other physical persons mentioned in can. 1405 § 3 of the Code of Canon Law[4], and in can. 1061 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches."  Yep.  That pretty much covers every cleric in the world. But I noticed that because I actually read the norms and then thought about them for 3 or 4 minutes.] along with a completely unconnected and unnecessary condemnation of the ordination of women. [And there we have it.  He wants women to be ordained.  Right?] This is especially ironic given that many Catholics, and I include myself among them, see the absence of women in positions of power in the church as a contributor to the ongoing sex abuse crisis.  [It must be the genius of their feminine relational wisdom, right?  Remember that SNAP has been after the LCWR about how women religious superiors have covered up sexual abuse of children by women.  This week a Lutheran bishopette in Germany resigned by failing to act in the obvious case of one of her pastors sexually abusing a minor.  That’s just the beginning of the story.]

This move is a mistake, plain and simple, imprudent at best, at worst a serious further blow to Rome’s already damaged credibility.

 

The Anglicans are waiting for you, Mr. Cones.

Posted in Biased Media Coverage, Throwing a Nutty | Tagged ,
81 Comments