Punditry

One of the indicators of progressive or whatever pre-fix label Catholicism is the trend to dogmatize the prudential and prudentialize the dogmatic.  If there is some letter by a subcommittee of some Bishops’s conference that agrees with some point it trumps all of Church teaching on the same subject  however magisterial.

For example the document  1978 document “Environment and Art in Catholic Worship” was treated as if passed down from the hands of Moses regardless that it never had any force of law or was ever even voted on by the American bishops.  Yet this document had a massive (negative) impact on Church architecture and the liturgy.  This pattern is evident over and over again.

Back in April and May Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton, Calif., the chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice, Peace and Human Development critiqued the budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan.  For example in this letter.  As a result of course progressive Catholics are saying Ryan has a “Catholic Problem” and of course the Nuns on a Bus also made this a central part of their tour.

So you have a statement issued by the head of a committee speaking on behalf of the USSCB.  Later at  the USCCB meeting in Atlanta there were some concerns about this statement.

“There have been some concerns raised by lay Catholics, especially some Catholic economists, about what was perceived as a partisan action against Congressman Ryan and the budget he had proposed,” said Bishop Boyea. That statement “didn’t really further dialogue in our deeply divided country.”

In his view, statements that endorsed specific economic policies revealed a lack of “humility.” He told the assembly, “We need to learn far more than we need to teach in this area. We need to listen more than we need to speak. We already have an excellent, fine Compendium [of the Social Doctrine of the Church].”

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., agreed that the committee was “at times perceived as partisan” and neglected the principle of subsidiarity, which calls for solutions that can be provided close to people in need.

Archbishop Naumann suggested that drafters of the statement needed to rethink a tendency to advocate for government assistance, and he said that the conference’s proposals should not ignore the ballooning national deficit.

“Sometimes we’re perceived as just encouraging the government to spend more money, with no realistic way of how we’re going to afford to do this,” he observed.

A third statement, by Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit, echoed Archbishop Naumann’s suggestion that the proposed document focus more on the family as the central social institution and spoke of how the “disintegration of the family” had fueled the demand for government assistance.

This is of course the problems that result when the USCCB wade into prudential questions in application of Church teaching. Bishop Blaire’s statements had the implication that these problems were mandated to be acted upon at the Federal level and with this understanding any cut in any social program was a detriment to the poor. It was also not helpful that his statements didn’t actually quote from the Church’s documents or show how the Ryan budget actually contradicted any of these teachings.

This is not to say that Paul Ryan made perfect prudential decisions in balancing what programs needed to be cut. This is an area where Catholics in good faith can argue about how best to apply the Church’s social teaching and treating the poor as Jesus himself. There is the temptation to solve everything at the Federal level since that seems to be the easiest way to lobby an idea. Federal budgets when they make cuts on some programs don’t detail how the slack is to be taken up. Subsidarity gets short shrift and very little gets done at the local level and States/Cities are unwilling to step in. These are of course problems that budgets can’t solve and the outsourcing of charity to other people’s tax money diminishes us all when we don’t personally answer the Gospel call.

I don’t object at all to any critiquing of the Ryan budget in regards to application of Catholic social teaching. What I object to are those that say Ryan has a “Catholic problem” and they would not make the same claim about Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sec. Sebelius, VP Joe Biden. This is just totally unhelpful partisan crap that advances nothing. Complaining about prudential application and dismissing outright support of intrinsic evils is really straining for gnats while swallowing a camel. This cafeteria Catholicism makes it easy to ignore a message that might contain valid criticisms. Thought that is the problem on both sides with the faith gets trumped by party “nationalism”. A temptation I must constantly fight and evaluate myself.

As if the “No Drag Queens” story couldn’t get more ridiculous:

But apparent dissension about the policy has arisen. Not only that, it seems to be an open question as to who is in charge at the renegade parish. On August 13 the S. F. Examinerpublished an article called “Faux Pas Puts S.F. Holy Site in Fix” by Carolyn Copeland.

Copeland spoke to Michael Poma, the business manager at Most Holy Redeemer:

“… although church Business Manager Michael Poma acknowledged that Pastor Brian Costello did tell members of the Castro Country Club that they could not hold their event if drag queens were scheduled to attend, Poma said he quickly reversed his decision.

“‘Father Brian wasn’t educated about the importance of drag queens in the gay community,’ Poma said. ‘Once it was explained to him, he said they were welcome to attend as long as their behavior was church-appropriate.’

“Church officials now say the new policy is not a prohibition against drag queens, but rather an end to all one-time events that do not originate at the church. Poma said the ban applies to all outside events — gay or straight — including weddings, parties or fundraisers. The church is still planning to hold its own events, including 12-step programs, suppers for the homeless and AIDS support groups.

“‘This is not a ban on drag queens or an insult to the gay community whatsoever,’ Poma said. ‘In the church hall there have been issues with weddings and other groups, so we decided to put an end to them altogether. We are part of the community here and to think that we’re banning drag queens is obnoxious and ridiculous.’”

California Catholic Daily via Sancte Pater

Concerning the new top level domain .Catholic that the Vatican applied for:

“Many other Christians use the term ‘Catholic’ to refer more broadly to the whole Christian Church regardless of denominational affiliation,” the Saudi Communication and Information Technology Commission said in its complaint.

“Other Christian communions lay claim to the term “Catholic” such as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church.”

“Therefore, we respectfully request that ICANN not award this.”

Yes the Saudis the protectors of religious freedom are so concerned about this. You can’t bring Bibles into our country or build Christian churches, but don’t you dare give the Catholic Church this top level domain since it is insensitive to the Orthodox Church. I think it is just sour grapes that they didn’t get “.Wahhabi”.

Saudis object to dot-Catholic top domain name

Cardinal Timothy Dolan discusses his decision to invite President Obama to the Al Smith fundraising dinner.

So, my correspondents ask, how can you justify inviting the President? Let me try to explain.

For one, an invitation to the Al Smith Dinner is not an award, or the provision of a platform to expound views at odds with the Church. It is an occasion of conversation; it is personal, not partisan.

Two, the purpose of the Al Smith Dinner is to show both our country and our Church at their best: people of faith gathered in an evening of friendship, civility, and patriotism, to help those in need, not to endorse either candidate. Those who started the dinner sixty-seven years ago believed that you can accomplish a lot more by inviting folks of different political loyalties to an uplifting evening, rather than in closing the door to them.

Three, the teaching of the Church, so radiant in the Second Vatican Council, is that the posture of the Church towards culture, society, and government is that of engagement and dialogue. In other words, it’s better to invite than to ignore, more effective to talk together than to yell from a distance, more productive to open a door than to shut one. Our recent popes have been examples of this principle, receiving dozens of leaders with whom on some points they have serious disagreements. Thus did our present Holy Father graciously receive our current President of the United States. And, in the current climate, we bishops have maintained that we are open to dialogue with the administration to try and resolve our differences. What message would I send if I refused to meet with the President?

Finally, an invitation to the Al Smith Dinner in no way indicates a slackening in our vigorous promotion of values we Catholic bishops believe to be at the heart of both gospel and American values, particularly the defense of human dignity, fragile life, and religious freedom. In fact, one could make the case that anyone attending the dinner, even the two candidates, would, by the vibrant solidarity of the evening, be reminded that America is at her finest when people, free to exercise their religion, assemble on behalf of poor women and their babies, born and unborn, in a spirit of civility and respect.

Some have told me the invitation is a scandal. That charge weighs on me, as it would on any person of faith, but especially a pastor, who longs to give good example, never bad. So, I apologize if I have given such scandal. I suppose it’s a case of prudential judgment: would I give more scandal by inviting the two candidates, or by not inviting them?

No matter what you might think of this particular decision, might I ask your prayers for me and my brother bishops and priests who are faced with making these decisions, so that we will be wise and faithful shepherds as God calls us to be?

In the end, I’m encouraged by the example of Jesus, who was blistered by his critics for dining with those some considered sinners; and by the recognition that, if I only sat down with people who agreed with me, and I with them, or with those who were saints, I’d be taking all my meals alone.

I can understand the Cardinal’s reasoning and can even agree with to some extent. This though is not simply eating with sinners, it is inviting somebody to a fundraiser for an organization that could be financially ruined by the HHS Mandate and put out of business and has been the most ardently pro-abortion President in history. Mainly what his eminence id not address was the fact that two previous Cardinals did indeed not invite Presidents or Presidential nominees because of their stands. Are these two Cardinals to then be criticized for not “eating with sinners”?

I still don’t agree with the decision (if it matters), but I applaud the Cardinal for addressing his reasons on his blog.

Call to Action Pennsylvania, Catholics for Social Justice, Pittsburgh Area Pax Christi and the Association of Pittsburgh Priests are seeking permission from a judge to file a friend-of-the-court brief in defense of the HHS mandate.

The four organizations criticized the Diocese of Erie, which has filed suit to overturn the mandate, for “join[ing] the attack on an important legislative effort to provide universal health care — a vital human right that Church teaching has supported for decades as a natural right possessed by all people as a matter of social justice.”

Not surprise by Call to Action and ultimately I guess not really by Pax Christi. Pax Christi had already been invested in a piece of social justice while ignoring other pieces such as the assault on life. They have gone from deemphasizing the pro-life effort by trumping it with something else to actively attacking it. Joining with a friend-of-Herod brief to support the assault on conscience eliminates any credibility they ever had.

CWN Via Sancte Pater

Bad Catholic posts a graphic “So you still think homosexuality is sinful” that is making the Facebook rounds.  Marc Barnes says it makes him laugh and I totally agree since it is quite unintentionally funny.

I think I got my recommended daily allowance of condescension  for the next year with the path for “No” and the next decade with the path for “Yes.”  I applaud Bad Catholic  for looking past the total ridiculousness of it and answering it.  Though he missed one point with the basic premise of the question in that it is not same-sex attraction itself that is sinful, but homosexual acts. That the creators of this graphic made no such distinction is no surprise since distinction-making abilities were not exactly demonstrated in the first place.

On another level I have to wonder just exactly what the point of such a graphic as an apologetic effort for same-sex marriage?  This is only the type of graphic where somebody who supports same-sex marriage can pat themselves on the back for being so enlightened and it in no way engages, but just insults opponents.

The picking of Rep. Paul Ryan by Gov. Mitt Romney was one of those “yeah team” moments for tribal Catholicism. You want to like a guy much more that is part of your own faith and even more so when they actually seem to believe the same faith. We’ve had plenty of Catholics rising to the national scene that really didn’t even seem to share the same faith.

For other reasons I am delighted by this pick since I didn’t think Romney had it in him. I figured he would go with a safer bet and didn’t think Ryan was really in contention. There have been very few things that Romney has impressed me with in this campaign. He had previously made a promise that he would pick a pro-life Vice President and I figured there would be some wiggle room in how he fulfilled this. Gov. Romney certainly doesn’t feel like any kind of social conservative warrior – more in the ranks of social conservative tenderfoot needing to do a lot of work on merit badges. I would love my skepticism to be proven wrong, but being from Florida I have recent memories of “pro-life” Charlie Crist who changed convictions like a suit a clothes depending on what he thought could get him elected. I don’t think Romney is as fickle as Crist, but that is not saying much.

When Rep. Ryan had appeared on Raymond Arroyo’s show The World Over on EWTN I was fairly impressed with him in that his Catholic vocabulary was rather intensive  and there was some serious engagement with Catholic thought.  Prudential application of Catholic teaching in the area of politics is fraught with danger and of course there can be many valid criticism as to how well Rep. Ryan has applied them.  In the area of prudential judgments this will always remain the case.

Vice President picks have traditionally been about helping the electability of a candidate and not about policy.  Very few Presidents/Vice Presidents have be real friends and usually the state a VP comes from is of the highest importance.  I don’t know tangibly what the Ryan pick does in helping Romney to get elected.  Sure it excites the base to overlook the clinging moderate aftertaste of Romney 1.0 before the conservative makeover of Romney 2.0. But does it really bring Wisconsin or any other state more in contention?

That he is solidly pro-life is of course a boon and quite important if it is not just another piece of pandering by the GOP towards the pro-life cause.  Much will depend on the relationship of these two men as to how important Ryan’s council will be.  There is also a question as to Ryan’s leadership abilities if they extend upon being a policy and economic wonk. A Congressman on the ticket is certainly a weakness in this regard.   On the bright side it is nice to have a VP who hadn’t already run for President themselves.

Ryan’s involvement with the budget can certainly be a plus since even discussing the topic and the fact that there have been no budgets passed since President Obama has been elected.  Though of course any proposed budget cut is broadcasted as hatred against any group of people affected. Pushing grandma off the cliff will be representative of the thematic attacks in this vein.

The largest meme so far regarding Ryan has been his association and recommendation of the work of Ayn Rand. He has certainly referenced her work in the past and admitted that she got him interested about economics in the first place.  The claim though that he required staffers to read Atlas Shrugged appears to be false as many present and past staffers have denied this claim.  One of the problems is that Ryan seems more to be backing off previous influences regarding Ayn Rand than being fully truthful about them. The question is has Ayn Rand philosophy shaped Ryan as much as Rev. Wright and others shaped President Obama?  When I was losing my atheistic faith I had turned to Ayn Rand and was comforted for awhile from her worldview.  Many go through a Randian phase until they grow up – it was embarrassing that I was in my late thirties when she appealed to me and I read many of her books.  There is something in the Randian worldview that is so appealing.  The rugged individualist and entrepreneur against those that would be happy in their government dependence.  Quite an appealing philosophy especially for Americans until you see that all the beautiful scenery has been grafted on a putrid foundation.  Radical selfishness which is the bedrock of the Randian universe is the unseemly undercurrent that shows in her books and her lived-experience in her life was an example of the rotten effects. Though there are certainly truths that can be discerned from her philosophy and she did have some valid economic insights.  It is just to bad as a Russian emigre she saw all the problems with Communism but none of the problems of the atheistic view that drove them.  She was like a doctor who could cure some of the effects of the disease, but not the underlying condition.  As for Ryan I really don’t see that radical selfishness is what drives his philosophy or is heavily influenced by this.  In one interview Ryan said “Give me Thomas Aquinas…don’t give me Ayn Rand” and I would really like this to be a true Rosetta stone in understanding Ryan.  I certainly like that he seems well familiar with the works of Pope Benedict XVI and has cited from them, but I have also learned to “put no trust in princes” and I trust politicians less than I trust princes.  I really want a solid Catholic who is a good example to be elevated, but wanting is not reality and I am not ready to canonize Paul Ryan either.  It is a sad indictment when we get excited about a Catholic politician just for apparently believing the faith.

It is always hard to sort through your own biases to try to look at a subject more clearly. It is certainly a very strange occurrence that we have a Mormon and a Catholic on a ticket in a year when religious liberty is so under attack. I it also an odd historical irony that having a Catholic on the ticket might ease the qualms of some Protestants in voting for a Mormon for President – who would have predicted that?  Plus it will be rather strange watching the Obama campaign put forth the words of some bishops regarding prudential decisions Ryan’s budget while totally ignoring the steamrolling of religious freedom and the letters of every single American bishop regarding the mandate.

Plus in regards to political theater there is the interesting contrast between two Catholic VP’s Biden and Ryan.  Talk about contrasting views and the differences in fidelity to magisterial teaching.  They seem more representative of the Angel and Devil on peoples shoulders in cartoons.  I can’t imagine Ryan saying anything like Biden’s “The next Republican that tells me I’m not religious I’m going to shove my rosary beads down their throat.” – though I really can’t imagine anybody talking like VP Biden.  I certainly wouldn’t miss the off-color commentary at bill signings such as Biden’s this is a “BFD” comment when Obamacare was signed.  The Vice Presidential debate should be interesting – maybe even for the first time.

“The lay Christian faithful called to give assistance at liturgical celebrations should be well instructed and must be those whose Christian life, morals and fidelity to the Church’s Magisterium recommend them.”

When I read this statement from  Redemptionis Sacramentum I think of people like Alex Baldwin. Well maybe not, but this one parish seems to think that this active abortion and same-sex marriage proponent who constantly proclaims vitriolic hate towards conservatives is fitting as a Lector.

For most, a Sunday church service is a moment for peace, worship and reflection — unless Alec Baldwin is in your congregation.

Sources tell us that some of the parishioners at Most Holy Trinity Parish in East Hampton are so sick of Baldwin’s blustering that a group stood up and turned their backs on the hot-tempered star as he gave a reading from the pulpit.

A source told us of the protesting parishioners on July 29: “Alec loves to be the center of attention and often reads from the pulpit, which really annoys some in the congregation. It is so bad that, one recent Sunday, he went up to read, and part of the congregation stood and rudely turned their backs on him.”

The source said, “Even though he has generously given a lot of money to the town, there are people who just don’t like him. He has a need for attention and shows up at every event. When people go to the church, they don’t want to see the movie star up there.”

Another source suggested that those who turned their backs were staunch Republicans who disagreed with outspoken Baldwin’s liberal views.

Baldwin, who has an eight-acre spread in East Hampton, and new wife, Hilaria Thomas, are regular parishioners at the church, of which he’s a generous benefactor. Last year, he donated a set tour of “30 Rock” to a church fund-raising auction.

Rev. Donald Hanson, the pastor, told Page Six, “Alec Baldwin reads from time to time at the church, and read again on Sunday two weeks ago.” Asked about parishioners who turned their backs, Hanson said, “I was told that happened, but I did not personally witness it, as another priest was saying the Mass.”

And about the reason for the public protest, he added, “I am not going to comment, as I wasn’t there.”

A representative for Baldwin said, “Alec was focused on the prayers, so he has no way of knowing if this happened. But does someone violating the sanctity of a church even deserve a response?”

Glad he is going to Mass, but his Twitter stream is not fitting for a Lector.

[Source]

I am the new pastor,’ Costello added. ‘There is a new archbishop. The archdiocese told me straight out, ‘No drag queens.'”

There’s a new Sheriff in town.

You would think this might be one item of something you didn’t have to be told. Oh by the way No drag queens.’ – who knew?

This of course is in reference to the infamous Most Holy Redeemer Parish in San Francisco where Castro Country Club has had drag queen events and drag queens dressed up as Nuns come up for Communion.

I would hope the new policy also means “No Sex Toy Bingo” something that has also been held in the parish. Though since “No Drag Queens” had to be spelled out maybe they will have to create a long list of things not to be done since common sense has not prevailed in the past.

Costello said that during a telephone conversation with a Castro Country Club representative, when the topic of drag queens came up, he told the person, ‘That is not going to work under the present circumstances.’

I hope that wasn’t an actual quote.  Regardless this is not an easy situation for Father Costello (who missed his calling as an Abbot) and he certainly needs prayer support.

Via Father Malloy, SDB  who has more details.