The Rev. William C. Hausen thinks of the Roman Catholic Church as an institution of the Middle Ages, an entity that shuns new ideas and contrary positions.
Of course positions contrary to his views will not be allowed in his new church.
“I think the institution of the church has used fear and guilt to manipulate and coerce people into not thinking for themselves,” said Hausen, 65, of Sewickley.
So Hausen is breaking away, risking a pension earned over 40 years as a Catholic priest, to form Christ Hope Ecumenical Catholic Church. Services are to be held starting May 2. The move prompted the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh to warn the outspoken priest and his potential Catholic parishioners that leaving the church means excommunication.
…As a pastor at St. James Catholic Church in Sewickley, Hausen on Easter 2002 professed in a fiery homily his opposition to the church barring female priests and marriage for priests. He also told parishioners they should be “pissed off” about the state of the church. He later apologized for using profanity and for voicing his opinions from the pulpit.
Bishop Donald Wuerl quickly reassigned Hausen to Sacred Heart Parish in Shadyside.
The diocese in October placed Hausen on administrative leave. He believes the move was due partly to his battle with alcoholism but also because officials disagreed with his views. Lengwin declined to discuss the decision, but said Hausen has been prohibited from wearing the Roman collar, publicly celebrating the sacraments or presenting himself as a priest in good standing.
It will be a church that will “act on our own informed conscience” and “profess no dogmas,” Hausen said. The church will “reject absolute statements and decrees. Absolute utterances are the weakest form of argument,” he said.
His first decree is that there are no decrees. The first dogma is that there are no dogmas. Absolute utterances are not allowed unless they are about a female priesthood.
Virginia Walker, 65, of Sewickley, was baptized at St. James parish, where Hausen was an assistant pastor for two years. She attended eight years of school and received her first communion there.
“I’m really a St. James girl,” she said.
But on May 2, she’s ready to become a Christ Hope girl, angered by a Catholic church she describes as a monarchy working with antiquated laws.
“I’ve been very unhappy with some of the things going on in the church,” Walker said. “There are a lot of people like me.”
She questions the logic of a church that moved priests accused of sexually assaulting children from parish to parish.
But I guess she is okay with the Bishop moving priests around that are theologically assaulting their parishioners.
“I don’t understand how the Catholic church could have been moving all these priests around who were guilty of terrible things, but they want to excommunicate (Hausen) because he wants to start a church,” she said. “I believe what (Hausen) is doing is reaching out to these people — people who are married and divorced and can’t receive the sacraments.”
[Full Story]
They are not barred from the sacrament of reconciliation if they are repentant and remove themselves from a sinful state. The Church does not bar individuals from the acraments, individuals through free will bar themselves from the sacraments. Allowing people who are living a lie and are committing an objectively grave sin to receive the sacrament of communion is not reaching out. Jesus said “go and sin no more” not “carry on.”
22 comments
Look for him to be the new most sought after “expert” when A&E and the Discovery channel do documentaries on the Church.
LET HIM BE ANATHEMA!!!
An heretical drunkard. Good riddance. From a member of the Church of Pittsburgh.
“but they want to excommunicate (Hausen) because he wants to start a church”
Yeah, he wants to start his own church, so the Bishop says that he can’t start his own and still be part of the Catholic Church. That doesn’t make sense (note sarcasm)
Jeff, Miller,
God made you, God Controls you; by what logic do you possess �free will�?
Jeff Miller: They are not barred from the sacrament of reconciliation if they are repentant and remove themselves from a sinful state.
Since they didn�t make (create) themselves obviously their maker must have designed them to be sinful � correct?
If not then how did they come to be sinful in the first place? Are you saying it is a �surprise� to God?
Look, given enough time and instruction you could probably build a CAR, and I am certain you are capable of driving (i.e. controlling) a CAR. Does a CAR have �free will� relative to you?
Okay, so substitute �God� for �YOU� and substitute �YOU� for �CAR� in the previous example and how is it any different for YOU relative to God regarding �free will�?
Jeff Miller: The Church does not bar individuals from the sacraments, individuals through free will bar themselves from the sacraments.
So when you build (make/create) a CAR why doesn�t it have �free will�? Can you even define that term in a consistent fashion?
If you write a computer program, is it possible for the program to have �free will� relative to you? How so?
Or suppose that you built a robot � a Terminator, like in those Schwarzenegger films. And since you programmed your robot to be a murderer he goes on a killing spree.
Okay, so here�s my question, who is more responsible for the killings � Your Terminator, or YOU the individual who built and programmed the robot?
Look, Mr. Miller, I don�t want you to get me wrong. You believe in �coincidence�? You think I am here by an �accident�? some �random� fluke? Perhaps I’m here merely due to the “stochastic” nature of quantum mechanics??? Or maybe your Master sent me? Maybe you are on the right track, but there is a minor �bug� in your algorithm?
The fact is that the notion of �free will� is a rejection of the concept of ultimate consequences for your actions (i.e. divine justice (or Karma, if you prefer)). �Free will� is a rejection of the notion of God�s Omniscience and Omnipresence. �Free will� is one of the false �gods� of Atheism.
You want to talk about this my Brother? Or are you going to continue to avoid me?
I see high school sophomores have found their way to a computer keyboard again.
Jon: I see high school sophomores have found their way to a computer keyboard again.
If an ad hominem attack is the best �logical� argument you can come up then I have no doubt your �God� is very disappointed in you �
Oh, it’s not. I have a day job and didn’t see any compelling reason to simply restate works from Augustine and Aquinas in a blog comments box. Perhaps I was a bit rash, but I also didn’t see the point of seriously engaging reasoning that tries to equate a car with a person to make a dubious point.
Serpent:
God made you, God Controls you; by what logic do you possess ?free will??
Your mistake is assuming that God could not create a being with free will, but only a machine. Why must that be?
The fact is that the notion of ?free will? is a rejection of the concept of ultimate consequences for your actions (i.e. divine justice (or Karma, if you prefer)).
No, it actually says absolutely nothing about “ultimate consequences.” Free will is about choice and culpability. There is one interconnection, though: Without free will, karma is inherently unjust, because it involves punishment for actions which are entirely and inescapably determined.
?Free will? is a rejection of the notion of God?s Omniscience and Omnipresence.
Only if you mistakenly believe that foreknowledge of a freely made choice is the same as the predestination of it.
Serpent,
This issue was settled long ago. Read Augustine’s “On Free Choice of the Will” as a refresher course.
Regarding the car analogy, the human body itself does not have free will any more than the car. Unfortunately, the human person is not a body and so cannot be compared to any human bodily construct. Your analogy is flawed from the beginning because it rests on the premise that the divine creation of human nature is essentially the same act as a human creation of an automobile. The analogy might work if humans were bodies, but it doesn’t really matter anyhow because they aren’t.
Varenius: Your mistake is assuming that God could not create a being with free will, but only a machine. Why must that be?
Well perhaps you should precisely define what you mean by �free will� for me?
In my mind the entire concept is fatally flawed. It�s incoherent.
The notion of �free will� would seem to defy the principle of Causality (i.e. cause and effect, action and reaction). �Free will� would seem to be a denial of the notion that individuals are ultimately responsible for their actions. Not to mention the problem of reconciling �free will� with the mountain of evidence for Determinism.
Your mind � your �consciousness� (i.e. your �Soul�) is an Algorithm. It doesn�t make decisions �randomly�, or �magically�, it makes them systematically and methodically based on your past experiences � your perceptions of what is beneficial. You may not have perceived that you mind is an algorithm, but I assure you it is. In fact, if you are trying to assert that you mind operates non-algorithmically you will have to explain precisely what you mean by that?
Varenius: [�free will� is the rejection of the notion of consequences for action �]No, it actually says absolutely nothing about “ultimate consequences.” Free will is about choice and culpability. There is one interconnection, though: Without free will, karma is inherently unjust, because it involves punishment for actions which are entirely and inescapably determined.
Are you suggesting that an individual who is evil or insane should not pay the consequences for their actions? If there were no negative reinforcements for behaving immorally then why would moral behavior be the preferable state?
Pardon me for saying it my Brother, but you almost sound like an Atheist here. What you are telling me is that �free will� is the notion that whether you are good or evil it doesn�t really matter because both end up with the same Destiny.
Varenius: [�free will� is a rejection of God�s Omniscience �]Only if you mistakenly believe that foreknowledge of a freely made choice is the same as the predestination of it.
Why would that be a mistaken belief?
Suppose that every night for the upcoming month I start sending you Mr. Miller�s next day�s posts before he actually post them?
How would you know whether I was simply predicting Mr. Miller�s future actions, as oppose to controlling them?
The fact is that the ability to accurately predict the actions of another in advance is the same as the ability to control that individual�s actions.
Suppose that I ask God what you will be eating for lunch next Thursday (4/22)?
Is there any chance that God could be wrong? Is there any chance that you could surprise God and eat something else that day?
Don�t misunderstand me my friend, I am not trying to challenge your religion. I am merely challenging a particular piece of Dogma.
(Dogma = information based on Tradition and History as opposed to Logic
Joel Baumgartner: This issue was settled long ago. Read Augustine’s “On Free Choice of the Will” as a refresher course.
Of course you realize that this is nothing more than an Appeal to Authority Mr. Baumgartner?
For example, how do you know that I�m not one the world�s leading authorities on Augustine (or Aquinas)?
If you want to discuss Augustine�s views on the subject, I�ll be more than happy to.
I didn�t think that the Ancient Latin and Greek speakers even had a term for what we would call �free will� today? What we translate from ancient texts as �free will� today would more accurately have had the connotation (meaning) of �free wishing� or �freely pray for� in ancient times?
Joel Baumgartner: Regarding the car analogy, the human body itself does not have free will any more than the car.
I agree.
Of course to a Materialist (are Christians Materialists?) there is nothing more than your physical (material) human body.
(in case you are wondering � no, I am not a Materialist myself. I am an Informationalist.)
Joel Baumgartner: Unfortunately, the human person is not a body and so cannot be compared to any human bodily construct.
When you say �Human person� here, what you are really referring to is �the Soul� � is that correct?
You are asserting that Mind and Body are not the same thing?
Of course we both know what the Atheists would say �
The behavior of Atoms (i.e. �matter�) is completely controlled by the Laws of Physics (TLOP).
Your physical body (and physical brain) are made of Atoms and nothing else.
Ergo, YOU (your actions, your thoughts, your emotions, your cognition) are completely controlled by TLOP!
Now try replacing the Atheists� �god� TLOP, with your God Yahweh. It still seems to make perfect sense to me � ?
Joel Baumgartner: Your analogy is flawed from the beginning because it rests on the premise that the divine creation of human nature is essentially the same act as a human creation of an automobile.
If you are the one asserting that there is a difference then you should be able to articulate precisely what that difference is.
Joel Baumgartner: The analogy might work if humans were bodies, but it doesn’t really matter anyhow because they aren’t.
Okay, then let�s try this:
You approach a RED traffic light in the middle of the day at a busy, yet unfamiliar intersection. What are the odds (based on your past experience) that you will use your �free will� to run the RED traffic light without stopping assuming it is not some sort of emergency?
What is the chance that you are going to use your �free will� to touch a hot stove burner over and over again?
What are the odds that you will use your �free will� to attempt and fly from the roof of a tall building?
Suppose I ask you �What is the sum of 2 + 2?�. How likely is it that you use your �free will� to respond with an answer other than �4�? (you can suppose this communication involves a purchase requiring correct change if that helps.)
If your answer is approximately zero percent (0.0%), then I would say the odds that you genuinely have �free will� is also about zero percent.
No.
Ooo, how Matrixy..
I have yet to see how rational choice and/or corporeal restrictions serve as evidence against the existance of free will.
Are you a determinist? Are you a materialist? Instead of using poor analogies to demonstrate that cars do not have free will, explain human nature to us. You said that you are an “informationalist.” What does that mean?
Missing quotes:
“When you say ‘Human person’ here, what you are really referring to is ‘the Soul’ � is that correct?”
“(in case you are wondering � no, I am not a Materialist myself. I am an Informationalist.)”
I’m sad to see that incoherent trolls still infest comments boxes. Oh well…yes, who did let the junior high schooler onto the computer?
I’m sure I was that stupid once, but it involved too much alcohol, a distinct aversion to the Sacraments, and excessive exposure to 19th Century German philosophers. Oh, and I was in junior high.
Flambeaux? Hey, have you seen Father Brown recently?
Cheers,
Joel Baumgartner: Ooo, how Matrixy
hehe � You do know who was behind those films?
They undoubtedly do more for your cause than Gibson�s Passion.
But I don�t think many Christians perceived it.
Joel Baumgartner: I have yet to see how rational choice and/or corporeal restrictions serve as evidence against the existence of free will.
Like I keep asking � define �free will� for me.
I�m betting you can�t. That should tell you something.
Do computer programs have �free will� because computer programs make rational choices and are corporeally restricted by the language they are written in and the hardware they run on.
Joel Baumgartner: Are you a determinist?
I am a hard core Determinist, although I prefer the term Fatalist.
Joel Baumgartner: Are you a materialist?
No I am not. �Matter� does not exist in the same way that You and I exist.
�Matter� is another false god of Atheism.
You see, the Atheists believe that �matter� exist independent of observation. It�s a notion that requires Faith, and it�s never a good idea to rely on Faith when you can avail yourself of Logic (Logos) instead.
Joel Baumgartner: Instead of using poor analogies to demonstrate that cars do not have free will, explain human nature to us.
I�m not sure I understand the question Graviton?
You think you are a homo sapien, but this is merely a temporary form. This universe is but a layer in the larger reality known as the Omniverse. Viewed from a place there you would perceive this reality as nothing more than a pattern in a sea of energy. It�s a reiterative fractal generated by a relatively simple algorithm (the �Unified Equation�). From the Omniverse you would also perceive consciousness (i.e. �Souls�) in their true form. You are a particle � a �Graviton�. You travel a jagged path through spacetime. This path marks out your Destiny. It is called your worldline.
And your God � another Graviton fundamentally no different than yourself. However your God possess a power that you lack. �He� is capable of generating a universe (a shared reality/frame of reference).
Your �entangled� with your God. Your Graviton orbits �His�.
Joel Baumgartner: You said that you are an “informationalist.” What does that mean.
Materialism is the belief that matter is preeminent over consciousness. Matter existed first. Matter makes consciousness.
But Matter has properties that cannot be perceived, even theoretically.
That makes Materialism a form of Supernaturalism � Mysticism.
Now what was it your God said about suffering a witch (a mystic) to �live�?
Informationalism replaces �matter� with information. Unlike Matter, Information does not have properties that cannot be observed (perceived). According to Informationalism Consciousness generates Matter. �Matter� simply being energy exchanged during communication between Gravitons (specifically between a Graviton and its God).
Flambeaux: I’m sad to see that incoherent trolls still infest comments boxes.
I�m sad to see someone claiming to worship a kind and loving God making personal insults to a complete stranger who�s merely seeking a sincere discussion on religion and theology.
Flambeaux: Oh well…yes, who did let the junior high schooler onto the computer.
Perhaps instead of bragging about your �superior� intellect, you�ll be kind enough to demonstrate it?
Flambeaux: I’m sure I was that stupid once, but it involved too much alcohol, a distinct aversion to the Sacraments, and excessive exposure to 19th Century German philosophers. Oh, and I was in junior high.
From my perception I don�t see that anything has changed all that much.
How many drinks did you have before you made this post?
Jon – Keep at it. Sooner or later, Flambeaux’ll have to read the books. :oP
As one who has so far had four teenagers, I’ll give you all a free piece of advice: listening to adolescents talking rubbish is a waste of time. At some point you just have to shut them up and get back to what you were doing. (In justice I must point out that mine virtually never do this.) When this one has gotten over the familiar teenaged obsession with free will, he’ll very likely move on to that other popular fascination of underused minds, the possibility that the whole world – the whole universe, man! – is, like, a dust bunny under the dresser of this, like, incredibly huge alien. Far out!
Elinor,
Perhaps if you had spent more time pondering �free will� when you were a teenager it wouldn�t have been your Destiny to make that rather condescending, yet content-free post as an �adult�?
But if pretending you have �free will� makes you �happy� �
Silly ass.
Comments are closed.