Punditry

The Nigerian terrorist bomb attacks on Catholics that has killed at least 35 people while they attended Midnight Mass is another great tragedy and one that also occurred last year on Christmas Eve.

Yet the AP puts out a story with this headline.

Nigerian blasts mar pope’s Christmas peace appeal

Really? What the Hell.

First off they minimize the terrorist massacre by reducing it to “blasts” and then they connect it to the Pope’s Ubi et Orbi Christmas message.

…May the Lord come to the aid of our world torn by so many conflicts which even today stain the earth with blood. May the Prince of Peace grant peace and stability to that Land where he chose to come into the world, and encourage the resumption of dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians. May he bring an end to the violence in Syria, where so much blood has already been shed. May he foster full reconciliation and stability in Iraq and Afghanistan. May he grant renewed vigour to all elements of society in the countries of North Africa and the Middle East as they strive to advance the common good.

This is a despicable headline even for the AP and of course the same headline gets published all over the world with no newsrooms seeing a problem with it. The context of 35 people being murdered with scores injured while they attend Midnight Mass is that it “mars” the Pope’s message. I bet they consider it doesn’t “mar” the “Religion of Peace” since it always the fault of “extremists”. They can connect the dots to the Pope’s message, but can’t connect things actually connected-dot-worthy.

I was wondering when the media would start the death watch for Pope Benedict XVI.

Pope Benedict XVI’s health in serious decline as 85th birthday

Health fears for ailing Pope as he heads into hectic festive season

Fears grow over health of frail Pope Benedict

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi has dismissed speculation that Pope Benedict XVI’s health is in serious decline, saying the Pontiff continues to carry out an intense schedule, and reasserting he has no specific medical concerns.

Speaking to Newsmax on Wednesday, Lombardi said he “continues to confirm there is no particular illness,” adding that the Pope, who will be 85 next April, “has the strength to carry out very intense activities.” He noted Benedict XVI will be presiding over “many celebrations in the next few days which last many hours.”

“I don’t know what else to say,” he added. “It’s the usual story that tends to appear around Christmas. If you look at the live television programmes, you will see he’s fine.”

Lombardi added that each person is free to comment, but at his most recent public engagement — at a Rome prison last weekend — Benedict XVI was able to respond to questions from prisoners “in a very lively manner, quickly and lucidly. [Source]”

The speculation followed news that the Pope is suffering from arthrosis, leading him to use a mobile platform at Vatican ceremonies. Benedict XVI is also taking measures to preserve his strength; he no longer meets each visiting bishop on a one-to-one basis, nor issues public messages to new ambassadors.

This is quite familiar for anyone who remembers the constant stories on Blessed John Paul II regarding his health for over a decade. He once quipped when asked about his health that he didn’t know since he had not yet read the morning’s paper.

The real story is the fact that the Pope as he moves towards his 85th birthday manages to keep the schedule he has and that the number of papal trips is much more than many people expected for his pontificate. He has also been quite prudent in combining the Ad Limina visits and perhaps improving the quality of them with small group discussions. That the Christmas season is especially taxing on him is no surprise since the same is also true for much younger priests. This is not to deny the increased difficulties he will have because of his age, but mainly to spotlight how well he has managed despite this.  The media can hardly wait till he dies and the new progressive pope of their dreams will arrive to save the Catholic Church.

Over at  the Over the Rhine and into the Tiber blog:

…commenter Gail F. has a snappy letter in the Cincinnati Enquirer about a page one story in last Sunday’s print edition on Pope Benedict’s unwillingness to resign from the papacy:

Now that we’ve heard the news that Pope Benedict XVI won’t be stepping down, I breathlessly await the similar front-page stories that President Barack Obama will not resign, the Dalai Lama will not make way for another, newer incarnation of himself, and Queen Elizabeth still won’t give the throne to Charles. Come to think of it, these exciting stories could use up column inches on the front page for weeks! It’s a good thing nothing important is happening anywhere in the world.  …

Mary Kochan of Catholic Lane reacts to some new stories involving atheists suing over “A Day of Prayer”:

Let’s get this straight. The atheists are suing because they had to turn off the television to avoid the topic of religion or news announcements about the Day of Prayer. They had to alter their conversation to avoid the topic of religion. This made them feel like “outsiders”.

Oh, boo hoo.

You whiny, sniveling, little, pusillanimous cowards. You have the audacity to tell us Christians that we are “weak” and that our religion is a “crutch.” You are supposed to be so “courageous”, venturing forth boldly into the existential mystery of being alone, facing with stoicism the nothingness that awaits you at death, priding yourself on your realism and self-reliance. You are a bunch of feeble fakers.

…You are a pitiful joke. Trembling over the mere mention of God. Running like babies to court because of your brittle feelings. “Oh, but judge, but judge, I saw a cross and I just can’t stand it.” “I heard someone say ‘Merry Christmas’ and it hurt my feelings.” “I just can’t sleep knowing there is a manger scene at the courthouse.” “The sight of the Ten Commandments makes me wet my pants.” Now we see how inadequate and feeble you really are. Rage, therapists say, is the flip side of helplessness. And so we see your rage against religion in the public square for what it is: a product of your own insubstantial internal resources. Go look at yourself in the mirror if you can bear the pathetic, contemptible sight of yourself. Our merest martyr shows you to be a wimp – fourteen-year-old Kizito of Uganda singing hymns while being burned alive. But you, you anemic, lily-livered worms – you quail at pushing the off button on the remote! Hah

One of the qualities of the so-called “new atheist” is their thinness of skin. In my decades of atheism seeing signs of belief in God did not freak me out wanting to file lawsuits or even rant on the topic. Sure I was condescending in attitude towards such belief and I wished for the Lennon utopian “imagine no religion”.  It’s easy to do just as long as you ignore all human history. News of declining church attendance made me happy, but my mission in life was not to remove any kind of religious symbol from city seals.

The social Darwinism of the new atheists is ironically funny as they talk of how the strong survive while also being greatly upset at a Christmas tree on government property or a memorial cross on the same. They respond like vampires when they see a cross and act like it will kill them if they see one on government property.

There has always been the thread of the feeling of intellectual superiority within atheism labeling themselves as “brights” or “free thinkers”. I know I had the feeling of atheist pride living in a society that had not yet been uplifted to living by reason. For the new atheists this is especially prominent, though in many cases this is not evidenced by an erudite use of reason to propose the reasonability of atheism, but attacks on religion as being nothing other than pure poison that never had anything good to recommend it. Yet murderous atheist regimes had nothing to do with an atheist worldview while murderous theist regimes were always culpable because of religious views even as their actions were not in accord with them.

It is always dangerous to lump people together with any label. People are much more complicated than that to fit any into nicely defined groups with exact characteristics. Just like religious believers atheists have many “denominations” and range widely in regards to opposition to religious belief. Since it is difficult to impossible to determine someone’s motives it charitable to assume the best. So for the large majority of atheists I assume they are seeking the truth and have concluded that atheism is the truth.

But I will define a small group of atheist by their actions as the thin-skinned atheists a.k.a the new atheists. The ones who have the attitude like the book burners who want to eradicate all signs that disagree with them. They don’t want to participate in the public square acknowledging that most people are theists and a majority of them Christians. They want any such signs in the culture abolished as if this was the triumph of reason. If atheism was the only possible reasonable conclusion, then reason instead of lawsuits should be their main weapon. Instead we get people like Richard Dawkins who largely avoids debates and instead does things like supporting legal efforts to charge Pope Benedict XVI with crimes against humanity.

Leaving aside the problem that atheism undermines reason in the first place. There is a belief in scientism that science can answer every question even philosophical ones – eventually. The adage that when the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail is especially true for atheist of this stripe. Like the Russian Cosmonaut Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin who said “I don’t see any God up here.” Though maybe he should have called himself a Ramdomnaut as cosmos means “the universe seen as a well-ordered whole”. Or P.Z. Myers who apparently though that desecrating the Eucharist by throwing it in the trash was a scientific experiment to disprove God at some level. The scientific method of mockery. As if Jesus who allowed himself to be mocked, scourged and crucified would do something about this new indignity. Regardless God will not be proven or disproven by experimental science and to think so shows lack of knowledge both regards to the ability of science and even a basic philosophical understanding of the idea of God.

Jesus turned water into wine and the new atheist turns whine into lawsuits. Persuasion by being a jerk is not the most effective of the persuasive arts. The new atheist complains that he thinks theists don’t think he can be a good person as an atheist while not being able to define what an objective good is other than in selfish terms. Jesus asked “Why do you call me good” to elicit a response of faith while the new atheist asks “Why don’t you call me good” to elicit a faith in the moral goodness of atheism. They demand to be called good when acting like a jerk and demanding societal compliance with his atheism. The jerk atheist or jerkiest such as P.Z. Myers and his blog can be picked up by National Geographic only shows they must not really want to spread the “good news” of atheism. Though people acting like jerks and wanting to be seen as good is not confined to atheists.

Mark Shea also responds to the referenced article and writes:

Dearest atheists, consider taking some free advice from somebody who bats for the opposite team. You know who you guys could take a cue from? Christian martyrs. Roast ‘em, mash ‘em, stick ‘em in a stew, they take a licking and keep on ticking. Gouge out their eyes and they laugh and turn it into a fun feast day. (Happy Feast Day to my grand-daughter, the Cuteness). Barbecue them and they say, “You can turn me over. I’m done on this side.” Heck, Perpetua was so badass that she actually helped the unnerved executioner in the arena by holding the tip of the sword to her throat so his trembling hands could deal the coup de grace. So New Atheists: Next time, pay attention to all those Christians you butcher by the millions and see if you can pick up some tips about how to cowboy up and deal with a little suffering. Those were men and women who could take it. Atheists who screech like little girls at the sight of a world not to their liking are not going to be very effective Vanguards for the Revolution because, you know, sheesh! What a bunch of sorry pantywaists!

His description of the new atheist “getting the vapors” when confronted by the idea of there being theists is rather apt.  The lawsuit-filing ones might get the attention in the news, but how many see them as heroes to be applauded?  When failing to remove the nativity they demand a public display for non-belief, which I guess would be  a Negativity Display.  In the meantime I will maintain the best way of annoying an atheist – by praying for them and loving them as my neighbor.

I don’t post much on the so-called “War on Christmas”, not because I don’t think it exists – but that its existence is to be expected.  In this toxic culture.

If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first.  If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. Remember the word I spoke to you,  ‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me. John 15:18

I totally expect that the culture will do everything it can to hijack Christmas so as to not admit that we needed a savior from our sin.  Though it is not only the secular culture that does this but also the Judases within. Via Mark Steyn.

One sympathizes, up to a point. As America degenerates from a land of laws to a land of legalisms, much of life is devoted to forestalling litigation. What’s less understandable is the faintheartedness of explicitly Christian institutions. Last year I chanced to see the email exchanges between college administrators over the choice of that season’s Christmas card. I will spare their blushes, and identify the academy only as a Catholic college in New England. The thread began by asking the distribution list for “thoughts” on the proposed design. No baby, no manger, no star over Bethlehem, but a line drawing of a dove. Underneath the image was the following:

“What is Christmas?

It is tenderness for the past, courage for the present, hope for the future.

It is a fervent wish that every cup may overflow with blessings rich and eternal,

and that every path may lead to peace.

Agnes M Pharo.”

The Agnes M Pharo? A writer of such eminence that even the otherwise open-to-all-comers Wikipedia has no entry for her. Still, as a purveyor of vacuous pap to America’s credentialed class for all-purpose cultural cringe, she’s hard to beat. One unfortunate soul on the distribution list wandered deplorably off message and enquired whether the text “is problematic because the answer to the question ‘What is Christmas?’ from a Catholic perspective is that it is the celebration of the birth of Christ.” Her colleague patiently responded that, not to worry, all this religious-type meaning was covered by the word “blessings.” No need to use any insufficiently inclusive language about births of Saviors and whatnot; we all get the cut of Agnes’ jib from the artfully amorphous “blessings.”

When an explicitly Catholic institution thinks that the meaning of Christmas is “tenderness for the past, vapid generalities for the present, evasive abstractions for the future,” it’s pretty much over.

Than there is the Auckland Anglican Church which seems to specialize in Christmas shock billboards year after year. This time it is one with the Blessed Virgin Mary looking upset at the results of a pregnancy test kit. I guess no “My soul rejoices” for them as they have turned the Annunciation into a renunciation.

Protesters upset about the billboard have now vandalized the poster by ripping off the portion with the birth control kit on it. Though I think they miss the point because the part that is blasphemous is not the birth control kit, but the showing of Mary in shock with her hand covering her face in disbelief. I use the word blasphemous in the way Fr. Hardon in part defines it:

Serious contemptuous ridicule of the saints, sacred objects, or of persons consecrated to God is also blasphemous because God is indirectly attacked.

While we are on the subject of Christians and Mary I saw a funny takedown of the song “Mary, Did You Know” as a dialogue between Mary  and the prosecution.  Here is a small example:

The Prosecution

Did you know that your baby boy will save our sons and daughters?

Mary

Yes, I did. The Lord told our prophets, “Say to those whose hearts are frightened: be strong, fear not! Here is your God, He comes with vindication; With divine recompense He comes to save you.” (Is 35:4)

The Prosecution

Did you know that your baby boy has come to make you new… that this child that you’ve delivered will soon deliver you?

Mary

Yes I did. The angel Gabriel greeted me saying, “Hail, full of grace (kecharitomene – Lk 1:28),” so I knew I’d already been delivered, actually. I then told my cousin Elizabeth that, “My spirit rejoices in God, my savior.” (Lk 1:47)

This was written by Mark M. of A Dei in the Life, but the post is at Roma locuta est.

This song does not annoy me as much as it once did as it is mainly a series of rhetorical questions.  In fact much of the song could have been improved by a chorus of Mary saying “Yes”.  Though of course some of the questions posed would have been of specific historical events that had yet to come.  The problems with the lyrics are some ambivalences as to how Mary was saved and the implied ignorance of the Blessed Virgin.  As a pop song it is fine if you make the necessary theological distinctions, as music for the liturgy that is another story.  I once heard it at Midnight Mass from a Protestant singer the Church had hired.  Considering the treasury of sacred music for Christmas, picking this rather banal song was a serious mistake.

Darwin Catholic also posts on this and links to a semi-defence of the song by Melanie Bettinelli:

The rhetorical questions don’t really imply that Mary didn’t know the answers. Sure, on a literal level they are directed to Mary; but I think the listener isn’t so much meant to linger on the state of Mary’s knowledge so much as be drawn toward contemplation of the mystery of Incarnation. It reminds me of the list of rhetorical questions in Pink Floyd’s “Mother”. The “mother” character isn’t really the point of the song, we’re not meant to think about who the mother is or what she will think or how she will answer; she’s just a rhetorical device.

The song moves the listener away from the iconic scene of the Mother and child in the stable and toward the rest of the Gospel story. In a post-Christian culture where most people never move beyond the Christmas card picture to think about Who that little baby is, this song tries to get them to do that.

I don’t think the song needs rebuttal because it isn’t really making the claims you say it’s making about Mary. The one detail that I agree is off is the line about “the child you’ve delivered would soon deliver you” and yet I can forgive the bad theology. First, because it’s a pop song and not a hymn. Second, because the focus of the line is a play on the word “deliver” not on the “soon”. And last but not least, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross did happen in time, a specific moment that fell after the moment of Mary’s conception, obviously. The grace of that act saved Mary outside of time. I think it is well within the bounds of poetic license to juxtapose the moments and is a bit tendentious to impose rigorous theological language and categories upon a song.

She states very well why I don’t hate the song with a passion any more (unless sung at Mass).

As for what Mary knew “Mary kept in mind all these things as she pondered them in her heart.” and I desire to know at the level she did.

At least three gay and lesbian clergy members were disinvited from participating in Advent services at Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in the Castro, the Bay Area Reporter has learned.

The call for the gay clergy not to attend came from the Archdiocese of San Francisco, sources said.

George Wesolek, spokesman for the archdiocese, confirmed that Archbishop George Niederauer made the decision.

“The basic reason is that Archbishop Niederauer felt the themes for vespers should better reflect the themes of Advent,” Wesolek told the B.A.R.

Wesolek said the decision came shortly before November 27, the first Sunday of Advent. [Source]

Well that is good news, though I certainly wish the statement would have been less politically correct and more specific. Though of course the real problem is not with the speakers themselves, but the fact that the parish would invite them in the first place. Dis-inviting them does nothing to solve the real problem of this infamous parish.

In a very surprising development the Pope Benedict XVI is going to release a new Apostolic Letter titled “Translatio Malum”. This new document coincides with the start of Advent and the new English translation that takes force for the 1st Sunday of Advent. My corespondent in Rome was able to provide for me a leaked copy.

1. With great affliction the English speaking portion of the Church has suffered through omissions or errors which affect the existing vernacular translation. As Litugiam Authenticam stated “Consequently, the Church has been prevented from laying the foundation for a fuller, healthier and more authentic renewal.”

After stating the case for the benefits of the new translation the Pope goes on to write.

2. While this new translation which has been in development for over a decade will be a boon to the Church, some are not satisfied with the more faithful language of the new translation. For these reasons, it is now seems necessary to set forth instructions for helping those who favored the previous English translation. Many people have grown up with this translation and are attached to it. They feel nostalgic towards this less than adequate translation and do not want this tradition of forty years to go away. Their conservatism in not wanting this English translation to change fights against progress and denies the authority of the Church to modify the traditional English translation. The opposition to the new translation seems to be in part predicated on the ability of the laity to add words to their vocabulary and in this age of constantly changing technology they are not able to learn words they are not use to.

3. To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to this translation of the English tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church. There has been public opposition by members of the Church criticizing the new translation by planning on retaining the previous translation.

4. Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my Apostolic Authority I decree the following:

a) a Commission is instituted whose task it will be to collaborate with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked to maintaining the previous translation. The Translatio Malum Commission will create directives allowing the use of the previous translation as an indult from the local ordinary.

b) moreover, respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the previous English liturgical translation, by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Sacramentary according to the typical edition of 1969.

c) lessons learned from previous problems in implementation of liturgical and translation changes impel me to clarify what I set forth for the Translation Malum Commision. The generosity I call for in allowing the indult English Mass does not mean that the local Bishop allows it only in one parish not accessible by many and set at an hour also inconvenient. Bishops should grant this at the request of a “stable group of faithful who adhere to the previous liturgical translation.” Stable group does not mean a hundred people or more or some other artificial number used to deny the English Indult Mass.

d) In anticipation of problems I have established a new society of apostolic life named the “Society of Ain’t Pius” who will be allowed to use the previous English Translation. The Society of Ain’t Pius has its charism of the celebration of the Mass using the 1969 ICEL translation.

Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on 26 November in the year 2011, the seventh of my Pontificate.

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

First there was:

Then:

And now:

What is up with Catholic Cathedrals in California?  Is is something in the water that causes Bishops and Cardinals to lose a Catholic aesthetic taste and to turn to architecture  that will not stand the test of time?

Will the Mass in the Crystal Cathedral be known as the “The Hour of Eucharistic Power”?

Just how much of people’s tithes will be going to supplying Windex?

Should Canon Law be changed to restrict bishops from buying protestant cathedrals just as they are ready to retire?  He actually passed retirement age two days ago.  Or is this the greatest practical joke ever from a bishop to his successor?  Maybe this is a very interesting challenge for his successor to transform the interior, though considering paying $57.5 million for it there is not going to be any money left from a diocese already in financial difficulty as a result of the abuse problem.

The Benetton clothing company has withdrawn an ad showing Pope Benedict XVI kissing a top Egyptian imam on the lips after the Vatican denounced it as an “unacceptable” provocation.

Benetton had said its “Unhate” campaign launched Wednesday is aimed at fostering tolerance and “global love.”

The campaign’s fake photos show a half-dozen purported political nemeses in lip-locked embraces, including President Barack Obama and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

The photo of the Pope had been on the company’s website all day but was pulled about an hour after the Vatican’s protest. A Benetton spokesman confirmed to The Associated Press that the Pope ad is no longer part of the campaign.

Vatican spokesperson Father Federico Lombardi said in a statement that the ad was “an offence against the sentiments of the faithful and a clear example of how advertising can violate elementary rules of respect for people in order to attract attention through provocation.”

On the company’s website, executive deputy chairman Alessandro Benetton is quoted as saying that global love is an ambitious but realistic goal.

You mean an ad campaign showing world leaders kissing each other is an unrealistic goal for “global love”? Who would have thunk it?

The picture itself shown here is one I would rather erase from my mind. You just have to wonder how such an ad ever came about in the first place.

Now this is a pretty crazy story.

The Religious Education department for Bonus Pastor Catholic College in Lewisham, England apparently showed some rather sick videos promoting sex and suicide.

• Parents complain to the school and are basically ignored
• They setup a website Bonus Pastor Exposed
• Headmaster sends out letter saying your computer could get hacked if you visit the website
• Parents hand out leaflets by the school but not on the school ground
• School calls the police on them

Pledging to adhere to state legislation requiring equal treatment for same-sex couples in adoption and foster-care services, Catholic Social Services of Southern Illinois is separating from the Diocese of Belleville. The agency will now be called Christian Social Services of Illinois.

“The Catholic Diocese of Belleville has announced that Catholic Social Services of Southern Illinois (CSS), consistently one of the most highly rated providers of foster care and other social services in the State of Illinois, is separating from the Diocese of Belleville,” the diocese said in a statement. “It will no longer be connected to or sponsored by the Diocese.”

“Unable to remain faithful to the moral teaching of the Catholic Church while adhering to the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, the 64-year-old social service agency chose to disassociate from the Diocese. It is hoped that this new entity will experience no interruption in its services and programs.

The name change does not go far enough. They are no longer Catholic or Christian and are simply secular. Though I guess there only actual concern was the retain the “C” of CSS. So maybe ‘Culture’ Social Services since they are tied only to the culture and not anything else. Really Judas Social Services would be a more apt descriptor. The only positive part of this is that they are not leaving the word Catholic in their organizations title as other organizations fraudulently do.

“This solution is what is best for the children by providing for their continuity of care and allowing for the retention of the caring, dedicated and professional staff employed by the agency,” said Gary Huelsmann, the agency’s executive director.

Just another item in the history of bad ideas that start with “we are doing it for the children.” Sadly it is always the child that loses with such help.

As then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.