Punditry

Barbara Nicolosi was forward this request for a screenwriter that she labeled offensive:

The person (or persons) we are looking for needs to able to take what we have and mold it into 100 pages of a screenplay similar to to feel of Liar Liar and Groundhog Day, with major elements of Fireproof and Courageous mixed in. (If you don’t know what Fireproof or Courageous are, please do not apply for this job). This is a paid position, but please keep in mind this is an independent project with a very limited budget. We are also not associated with the WGA so we require an independent writer.

Yikes!

Our team is spread out throughout the country, but you will mostly be working with with our producer in [somewhere far from the hub of moviemaking]. This can be done over Skype or Google.

Requirements for this job:
1. Have written at least 3 full length screenplays, and are proficient at all screenwriting formatting and industry standards of screenwriting
2. You are a writer who uses and believes in “The Hero’s Journey”
3. You know, and have seen Fireproof and Courageous
4. You are an expert at using Final Draft
5. You have collaborated on screenplays with other people before
6. You are willing to work for less than you would normally get paid
7. You know how to write comedies and family films
8. You are a Christian

Now Fireproof and Courageous really can be provided as examples. Examples that well-meaning is not enough. That having dominant Christian themes is not enough. While Sherwood Pictures’ movies have progressively gotten better — they still have a long way to go. People often allude to Chesterton’s “If it’s worth doing, it’w worth doing badly” which Christian filmmakers have apparently taken to heart. But the context of Chesterton’s quote was a defense of hobbies and does not apply here. Now I don’t want to pile on Sherwood pictures, but their director is David Evans — an optometrist whose previous show business experience was producing his church’s annual Easter Passion play. Now surely there is such a thing as the talented amateur, but even they have to bust their chops a bit to grow in their art.

Now the job requirements could be fixed a bit if they used instead of “You know, and have seen Fireproof and Courageous” and requested “You know, and have seen Fireproof and Courageous and understand their flaws and how they could be improved.”

You also get what you pay for and if you can’t hire a writer at the normal salary you are going to have a problem. Sure many Christians do decide to take a lower salary than what the market can bear when working with Christian organizations unless apparently you work for the Archdiocese of Boston (though all things being equal I don’t have a problem with paying people what their skills are worth). But it’s the whole mindset of getting a bunch of amateurs together for a film “worthwhile” project that is problematic. You end up with celluloid or whatever digital medium that is the artistic equivalent of a plastic dashboard Jesus.

Barbara has a nice set of snarky responses to this request.

LAKELAND, Fla. –  A group of atheists in Florida spent part of their weekend washing away a blessing placed upon a local highway by a religious group.

Armed with brooms, mops and “unholy water,” the atheists gathered Saturday to symbolically clean up holy oil that Polk Under Prayer put down on Highway 98 near the Pasco-Polk county line last year, Bay News 9 reported.

“We come in peace,” Humanists of Florida director Mark Palmer announced before he and members of other atheist organizations launched their cleanup. “Now that’s normally what aliens say when they visit a new planet, but we’re not aliens, we’re atheists!”

According to the report, Palmer said Polk Under Prayer’s blessing “sends a very bad signal to everyone in Polk County, and [anyone] who travels through Polk County who doesn’t happen to be Christian.”

The unblessing project, he explained, was “not about atheist rights” but about “welcoming everybody into Polk County.” [Source]

I am glad I got out of atheism when the going was good. This is inline with the idiotic unbaptism using hair drivers.  So let me get this straight.  You claim to live by pure reason and all religion is just nonsense yet you take time to undo what you consider pure nonsense with some more pure nonsense.

Now if they really wanted to undo the effects of Christianity than they sure work to remove all hospitals and universities  which all got their start under Catholic auspices. The development of science has got to go also since the Church was indeed a midwife to science that was stillborn under all other cultures.  Though atheistic cultures do create things such as the Guillotine and the Gulags and are able to kill many more people than bad Catholics ever did in history.

The case of  Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s continues to provide interesting fodder for the Catholic blogosphere, especially since he released a statement  yesterday.  Unfortunately many of the discussions try to force a narrative where the facts are not fully present.  I pretty much concur with what Fr. Longenecker wrote:

I don’t know Fr Guarnizo and I don’t have enough facts either way to make the judgment in this case, and anyway it’s not my job. It’s easy to jump to Fr Guarnizo’s defense and view the Archdiocese as the Big Bad Wolf (in sheep’s clothing) when the fact is, we really don’t know all the facts and so we can’t make a judgment one way or the other. We have to give both Fr Guranizo and the Archdiocese the benefit of the doubt.

So I will try to stick with what I do know (yes an odd decision for a blogger). Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s arguments in his statement that what he did was what any faithful priest would do are incorrect as he tries to justify them outside of Canon 915 which he seems to see as not applying in this circumstance. For those who like to try to understand Canon law better from an expert opinion, Canonist Ed Peters again comes to service with a detailed post on the subject. When I read Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s statement yesterday I was hoping that Ed Peters would follow up on the subject before I posted myself.

So I would see that it is rather apparent that Fr. Marcel Guarnizo has made a mistake and that he has so far refused to admit any error in what he had done.  More than likely he is indeed a faithful priest who did what he thought right, but that faithfulness should also be obedient.  The Archdiocese as I wrote the other day has added to the confusion and from just a PR perspective this was handled rather badly.  The Archdiocese has also framed this discipline as being done for actions other than the withholding of Communion, but they have not specified what this is.  Returning to Fr. Longenecker again, he writes about “intimidating behavior” and what exactly does this mean.  The phrase seems to have been used by the pastor of the Church and not the Archdiocese.

If this is true, is justice being done? Can an Archdiocese withdraw faculties from a priest simply for ‘intimidating behavior’? What on earth does that mean? Any kind of conflict in a parish in which a priest asserts himself might be construed as “intimidating behavior”. For goodness sake, I can name half a dozen priests off the top of my head about whom reports of “intimidating behavior” are reported weekly.

Even if Fr Guarnizo is guilty of “intimidating behavior” what did he actually do? Did he hit someone? Did he threaten them with violence? Did he threaten to blackmail them? What did the “intimidating behavior” consist of? Were there witnesses? What actually happened?

Will “intimidating behavior” become the new “abuse”. Increasingly we hear charges against people of “abuse”. “Abuse” used to mean that a man came home, kicked his kids down the stairs, punched his wife and raped his daughter. “Abuse” used to mean a woman got drunk, burned her kids with cigarettes, tortured the dog and locked her son in a cupboard. “Abuse” used to mean a priest was a drunkard, raped little boys and stole the collection money.

Now the term “abuse” is thrown at people, damning them with a vague and unproved accusation. “My husband was abusive!” I hear a woman complain, and it turns out he didn’t listen to her enough and forgot to take out the trash on a Tuesday. “My mom is abusive!” a high school kid wails, and it turns out she yelled at him to clean up his room and grounded him because his grades were lousy.

This is the heresy of sentimentalism turned violent. The play is on a supposed victim’s feelings. So-and-so was “abusive” or “intimidating” and I’m feeling wounded so the accusation is made, the “abusive” or “intimidating” person is accused, assumed guilty and executed without trial.

The lack of clarity on the story just goes to provide more muddle.  As Ed Peters writes:

I have long believed that the express terms of Canon 915 support its much wider application against certain prominent scandal-giving Catholics, and I have labored to advance the application of Canon 915 ad bonum Ecclesiae et salutem animarum. Serious misapplications of the values underlying Canon 915, however, undertaken by ill-informed ministers and touted by grossly ill-formed partisans, only set back the cause of seeing Canon 915 applied correctly today.

A philosophy professor at the University of Notre Dame has declared in the New York Times that the bishops no longer decide morality in the Church and that “the immorality of birth control is no longer a teaching of the Catholic Church.

Gary Gutting, Endowed Chair in Philosophy, makes the typical muddles of how the teaching magisterium is actually the “faithful” and not the bishops in union with the Pope.  Of course “faithful” is defined as those who agree with my position.  That a majority opinion constitutes truth and you have to wonder why we aren’t all Arians if this is so.  If the Israelites got to vote up and down the Ten Commandments would any have survived?  As G.K. Chesterton stated “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”

Oh and will anybody be surprised that they professor teaches from the works of Peter Singer?

* The headline is taken from the fine quip at the end of the post from the Cardinal Newman Society.

There has been plenty of reactions concerning Fr. Marcel Guarnizo being placed on “administrative leave” and having his faculties removed by Archbishop Wuerl. For the few people that might not be familiar with the story, it first made news when Fr. Marcel Guarnizo denied Communion to a women at the funeral of her mother. Apparently prior to the Mass the priest learned that this women was a lesbian and he had requested that she not present herself for Communion, which she subsequently did.

Now this story has plenty of red meat for us Catholic bloggers, but it is also the kind of story that prompts a firestorm without actually providing much light on the subject.

It is quite easy to immediately see Fr. Guarnizo as a sort of hero for his actions. As a general rule faithful Catholics have been very upset concerning all the examples of public Catholics whose actions are contrary to the faith and yet present themselves for Communion. People who know little about Canon Law know about Canon 915 and its application in regards to denying Communion to those “who persist in manifest grave sin” or have for example been formally excommunicated. The fact that this Canon is hardly upheld in even the most scandalous of cases (read Rep. Nancy Pelosi) has in itself caused scandal.

The problem is people have been too quick to apply the Canon in this situation. My own untrained opinion is that the application of this Canon in this situation was incorrect. Expert opinions such as the one from Canonist Ed Peters confirm this. As Ed Peters writes Canon 915 relates to pubic consequences for public behavior and the definition of public as understood by Canon Law.

• The fact that it was later revealed that the women in question is a Buddhist does not change this.  Even if the priest knew she was a Buddhist before hand.
• Even if her motives were to set the priest up it does not change this. Whatever her motives were they affect her personal culpability, but not the priest’s decision on this.
• Just knowing that the person is in objectively grave sin, whatever that sin may be, is not enough to deny the Communion except in the more narrow case that Canon 915 covers.  If somebody is in objectively grave sin where possible this person should be informed that they should not present themselves for Communion as a spiritual act of mercy  as prudence concerning the situation would dictate – but not during Mass itself.

So what we have concerning public information is that the priest made a mistake in the application of this Canon.

The reactions to this story imply many things that are not in evidence.  Many people seem to assume that the diocese is unfairly persecuting Fr. Marcel Guarnizo and reacting out of a form of political correctness.  I know this has been the initial knee-jerk reactions I have had myself as the story has progressed.  It is quite easy from the confines of my computer chair to make all sorts of pronouncements regarding motives despite not having any evidence for them.  This is one reason I have not commented on this story prior to now.  It is quite easy as a blogger to just let a post fly as a reaction, but I am posting now due to a reader request.   That somehow those of us who have followed the story mostly via 3rd party reporting know more of the details than Archbishop Wuerl and assume bad faith on his part.

There has also been allegations of “intimidating behavior” by Fr. Guarnizo, but this also falls in the area as something not in evidence or mentioned in the letter from the Archdiocese. This same letters also mentions the hope for his return.

In cases such as this it is better to stick to general principles and when you start diving into motives you have dived off the wrong board.

What I will comment on is that I don’t think the Archdiocese of Washington D.C. has handled this very well. Some attempt at catechesis on the subject has been attempted by the diocese, but it has been not as clear as it could be when it comes to when Canon 915 could correctly be applied.  I can certainly understand why the diocese issued a letter of apology to the women and this was appropriate.  I would have liked to have seen some mention of the fact that she should not have presented herself for Communion, but stating this is a prudential matter.

Related posts worth reading from Ed Peters:

Bp. Knestout’s March 9 letter on Fr. Guarnizo

Remarks on the ‘Catholic Standard’ editorial on the lesbian/Communion controvery

A thought exercise occasioned by the lesbian/Communion controversy

Note on the lesbian Communion case

When it comes to bigoted anti-Catholics ads this one takes the cake even for the New York Times.  If atheists published Chick Tracts this is what they would look like.  Though maybe Chick Tracts are downright ecumenical compared to this.

\\

Full text at the Creative Minority Report.

I find it also rather interesting in a strange way.  For one they seem to consider  liberal Catholics to be brothers-in-arms and rightly calls them dissenters.  There is some truth to this understanding as atheists have a moral worldview quite similar to dissenting Catholics.  If by their fruits will you know them how can you differentiate the fruits of dissenting Catholics from secularist atheists?  Exactly what would divide them as far as practice goes besides the obvious belief vs. unbelief in God.  When it comes to the issues of the day they are locked step in agreement.  Moral relativism with no foundation in unchanging truth embraces both camps.

Reading through this screed I really can’t see where there view departs from dissenting Catholics and lines like “Why are you propping up the pillars of a tyrannical and autocratic, woman-hating, sex-perverting, antediluvian Old Boys Club?” could easily appear in the National Catholic Reporter.  Funny though how these atheists are upset about the lack of women priests when they don’t even believe in God.

In some ways though this ad asks the right questions.  Why are dissenting Catholics who have such a negative view of the Church and who disagree on foundational questions remaining Catholics?  The Protestant reformation did not start out to leave the Catholic Church, but they came to understand that their ecclesiology and theology was such a departure that they were forced to leave.  As incorrect as this understanding was, it at least had a follow through in measure with their beliefs.

If you imagine you can change the church from within — get it to lighten up on birth control, gay rights, marriage equality, embryonic stem-cell research — you are deluding yourself. If you remain a “good Catholic,” you are doing “bad” to women’s rights. You’re kidding yourself if you think the Church is ever going to add a Doctrine of Immaculate ContraCeption.

Now here is a back-handed compliment if I have ever seen one. This groups has a better understanding of the Church than dissenters do. The Church indeed is never going to change one of dogmas whether it concerns hot buttons issues or more obscure points of theology. The Church is never going to u-turn on her magisterial teachings because truth itself is unchanging. We can come to a better understanding, but not a reverse understanding.

The Amish, as Pollitt points out, don’t label cars “an assault on religious liberty” and try to force everyone to drive buggies. The louder the Church cries “offense against religious liberty” the harder it works to take away women’s liberty.

I guess they didn’t realize how ironic their example is since the Amish are exempt from Obamacare which is all that faithful Catholics are also requesting. As usual liberals are irony-deficient in framing the debate as a forcing of beliefs while they attempt a Borg like assimilation forced at the arm of government that extends with a fist.

Now the actual question of why dissenters remain Catholics is not going to be answered here. People are quite complex and their are no one theory fits all explanations. There are complexities of culture which include tribal Catholicism along with aspects of being drawn by grace. I’m certainly glad that God didn’t give up on me as a once very liberal atheist. While I might wonder why dissenters remain in the Church and don’t follow their ideology into Anglican/Episcopalian channel I still pray for them to come into a fuller understanding and love of the Church that Christ gave us. They might be wrong about the Church’s teaching, but they are not wrong that this indeed is the Church.

I am currently reading through the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church and I thought these paragraphs quite appropriate concerning the HHS mandate.

398. Authority must enact just laws, that is, laws that correspond to the dignity of the human person and to what is required by right reason. “Human law is law insofar as it corresponds to right reason and therefore is derived from the eternal law. When, however, a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; in such a case it ceases to be law and becomes instead an act of violence”.[816] Authority that governs according to reason places citizens in a relationship not so much of subjection to another person as of obedience to the moral order and, therefore, to God himself who is its ultimate source.[817] Whoever refuses to obey an authority that is acting in accordance with the moral order “resists what God has appointed” (Rom 13:2).[818] Analogously, whenever public authority — which has its foundation in human nature and belongs to the order pre-ordained by God [819] — fails to seek the common good, it abandons its proper purpose and so delegitimizes itself.

c. The right to conscientious objection

399. Citizens are not obligated in conscience to follow the prescriptions of civil authorities if their precepts are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or to the teachings of the Gospel.[820] Unjust laws pose dramatic problems of conscience for morally upright people: when they are called to cooperate in morally evil acts they must refuse.[821] Besides being a moral duty, such a refusal is also a basic human right which, precisely as such, civil law itself is obliged to recognize and protect. “Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane”.[822]

It is a grave duty of conscience not to cooperate, not even formally, in practices which, although permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to the Law of God. Such cooperation in fact can never be justified, not by invoking respect for the freedom of others nor by appealing to the fact that it is foreseen and required by civil law. No one can escape the moral responsibility for actions taken, and all will be judged by God himself based on this responsibility (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).

The whole HHS mandate thing just gets more and more depressing.  They have successfully framed the debate to go into every rabbit hole but the one concerning the free exercise of religion which the Constitution recognizes (not creates) as a right.  The Goebbelization of telling a lie long enough and often enough has formed the vapid substance of the opposition.  Avoiding talking about freedom of religion and talking about contraception ad nauseam.

• When they talk about the cost of contraception.

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

• Some Catholic institutions take federal money so should have to pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortion inducing drugs.

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

• That forced contraceptive coverage will not cost anybody more. Even if you accept that nonsense:

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

• That the birth control pill is sometimes used for other things besides contraception.

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

• That the Catholic laity are unfortunately lax in regards to the truth of Church teaching.

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

• No matter what pragmatic or utilitarian argument you make relating to this.

What the heck does that have to do with our freedom of religion?

The thing is either we have freedom of religion or we don’t.  If I am forced to do something against my conscience with the bully weight of government threatening me with fines or imprisonment they have violated the first amendment to the Constitution and ultimately the natural law rights that we have.

There is no right that a person has that insurance must be paid for by their employer.  This arose historically as a way for companies to attract people.  Companies should be totally free to choose what kind of coverage they have or no coverage at all and really it would be better for employers to get out of providing insurance instead raising salaries and letting individual buy their own coverage.  The medical insurance field would be much more competitive if this were to happen.

You just can’t compromise between an actual right and something that is not a right at all.  There is no suitable compromise when you start trading of your rights for some pottage of government programs.

I find it quite despicable this obvious assault on our freedom and those who try to deny that this is a violation.  I know there are men of good will, they just don’t seem to run for office and instead we have partisans on both sides who will shred the Constitution as long as they get something they want out of if.

“The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”

Right now the conservatives are working very hard to prevent this mistake from being corrected by nominating a guy that shilled for the mandate at a federal level and forced Catholic hospitals to use Plan B. Four more years of President Obama and exactly what rights and freedoms will we have left?

This issue should be an all hands on deck reaction and not just an issue for faithful Catholics.

Considering all the attention on contraception and cost of birth control pills I started to wonder whatever happened to so-called “safe-sex”?  For years liberals have been lecturing us on condoms and their many wonders in making things safe.  They have charged popes with murder for not allowing them and even have legislated porn stars to wear them.

I guess they don’t believe their own propaganda regarding condoms.  After all they are much cheaper than birth control pills and no side effects other than sin.  There are certainly some using both condoms and the birth control pill as a backup, but even this shows they don’t trust condoms.  Here they are worried about a “unintended” pregnancy which can occur during a narrow windows yet an STD could be contacted at any time during the month.

Maybe some of the demonstrators from the Occupy Wall Street movement who threw condoms on Catholic schoolgirls could throw some Ms. Fluke’s way. Somehow I don’t think those who are crying about birth control pill costs would much like the suggestion to buy condoms instead.  I guess condoms are good enough to preach to school age kids, but not good enough for them.