Punditry

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Catholic Charities branches of three Illinois dioceses have filed a lawsuit against the state of Illinois in order to continue operating according to Catholic principles — by providing foster care and adoption services only to married couples or non-cohabitating singles.

The suit was filed June 7 in response to the state’s new civil-union law — formally called the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act — which was passed last December by the lame duck, Democrat-controlled state Legislature along a party-line vote and took effect June 1. That law threatens to prohibit agencies such as Catholic Charities from performing foster care and adoption services with state funds if they refuse to place children with unmarried couples, including those in civil unions, whether homosexual or not. The new law essentially views couples in civil unions as married couples, with many of the same rights and privileges, and bars discrimination against them. [Source]

That’s good news that the Thomas More Society is getting involved. When this happened in Massachusetts and San Francisco Catholic Charities just laying down instead of challenging such a law with religious discrimination at it’s root.

Though on a side point I have to wonder about adoptions to non-cohabitating singles? Under Catholic teaching there is at the minimum a preference for a child to have both a mother and father and in the current circumstance of long waits for adoptions is adoptions to non-cohabitating singles a valid alternative when a married couple is also awaiting a child to adopt?

I haven’t posted on New York congressman Anthony Weiner scandal via my blog or Twitter etc despite how pun-worthy the congressman’s name is with the details of the scandal involved. Though I have been following the story since it first came out wondering when the congressman would finally move along from “Go away there is nothing to see here” mode to some form of acknowledgment and apology.

To my sorrow it was only today that I thought to pray for him, his family and the people involved. When you get hyper-political it is easy to see people as chess pieces and when a pro-abortion politician falls you think of it in terms of political points. Just like how much the left loves it when a Televangelist is caught in some sexual escapade, we on the right can have the same feelings when some liberal politician falls especially such a rabid critic of conservatives such as Rep. Weiner.

That politicians are just as susceptible to original sin should be a surprise to no one and if anything are placed in an arena of increased temptations. Though Rep. Weiner has confirmed my prejudice against liberals politicians in that they hardly ever resign after a scandal and rarely received great pressure from their political allies to do so. They talk about accepting “full responsibility” while not accepting any consequences for their actions.

Regardless I will try to remember to pray for him and to pray that he also repents of his culture of death views. The connection between supporting abortion and seeing women only as sexual objects to be used is not a casual connection.

How often have you heard or read the statement “I have never heard a homily on …”. I know I have come across this on Catholic blogs on multiple occasions and I am sure that I have mouthed that phrase myself at least once. We notice the lack of some subject being covered in homilies we hear on some subject important to us.

We especially notice this lack for subjects that we consider important for other people to hear. Rarely if ever do we say “I have never heard a homily on” some area where we ourselves need improvement. But that follows since we almost always are more apt to notice faults in others while being dismissive of our own faults.

Though I want to address another aspect of the “I have never heard a homily on …” phenomenon. Why do we think the homily should be the primary vehicle for teaching? Do we really believe that if “subject X” was more often talked about in a homily that people would be more submissive to the Church’s teaching on “subject X”? That if for example subjects such as contraception and abortion were more talked about in a homily that the average parishioner supported these things would change their mind? “I heard the priest talk about the sin of contraception today and so immediately went home and through out the birth control pills.” This is not to say that subjects such as these should not have a wider coverage within homilies, but that the “I have never heard a homily on …” (IHNHAHO) is not the underlying problem. As the GIRM states:

65. The homily is part of the Liturgy and is strongly recommended, for it is necessary for the nurturing of the Christian life. It should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners.

So it seems to me the homily is to open up the scriptures to us as Jesus opened up the scriptures on the road to Emmaus and to be also crafted for the “particular needs of the listeners”. The second area is certainly where Catholic teaching can be shored up in those realms where the priest believes there to be a deficit among the parishioners.

The real question we should be asking is why some doctrine or area of the spiritual life is missing from the catechesis and formation of Catholics. The homily is not meant to be the primary teaching vehicle for remedial formation. A ten minute homily on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation can not be our primary source of formation. A gifted homilist can do great good, but frankly the state of homiletics in my experience range the gamut. Though we are not like Protestant churches that stress preaching and put the name of the pastor on signs outside like a kind of “look who we have preaching” billboard. To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld “We go to church with the homilists we have.”

The problems are much deeper and cover faith formation at the levels of family, schools, R.C.I.A, continuing adult formation, etc. Plus we all have a duty to inform our consciences and to seek any formation to help us grow in the spiritual life and to become saints. The breakdown in catechesis and anti-catechesis from dissidents has exasperated problems leading us to say the IHNHAHO statement. I have certainly read and heard a number of RCIA horror stories in regards to the faith taught – thankfully my own RCIA experience was very positive. We certainly have heard about how the faith was watered down and how Jesus hand puppets and felt banners became the substance of Catholic education. There are many things we can complain and commiserate on in regards to Catholic formation.

The question is what can be done about these problems? Introducing these subjects in a homily will not of itself help people to understand the Church’s teaching since often a lot of groundwork needs to be laid first theologically and philosophically. We can’t do anything about bad catechesis in the past, but must finds ways to correct those deficiencies. I’m not an expert on adult faith formation and so they don’t pay me the big bucks or any bucks at all to pontificate on solutions. But I am also a blogger so will pontificate anyway.

Parishes were once the center-point of a Catholic’s life and I think we need to find ways to bring about a greater level of connectiveness at the parish level so that some level of adult faith formation can occur. The growing number of parishes with Eucharistic Adoration certainly achieves part of this. Adult faith formation does not mean just classes, but a living of the Catholic life. Eucharistic Adoration starts at what we need most – to worship God in adoration and to pray. No doubt this also moves us into wanting to know more about the faith. Surely other things could open us up to more sacramental catechesis such as an emphasis on confession at the parish level. Parishes need to be something more than a place we go once a week for an hour to mark off a requirement on the minimum Catholic requirement checklist.

So how do we make that happen? I would certainly like the hear examples of places where parish life became more important and adult faith formation improved.

A rare rant from the gentle-mannored Ironic Catholic who is “flummoxed” by people dismissive of the idea of a culture of death.

Let me put it this way: I live a pretty charmed existence, (lower) middle class in the sedate Upper Midwest, with a lovely family and work I love. But I am also surrounded by people interested in slashing human dignity at every turn: hospitals that ask me with every pregnancy (for over two hours at the mandatory genetic questioning intake) are you sure you don’t want to kill your child, part of a Church where a majority of practitioners support torture, a country that increasingly encourages assisted suicide over being human and holding that person’s hand, a nation at war for reasons I *still* cannot understand, a neighborhood where a mother of a child with Down Syndrome had an acquaintance tell her (IN FRONT OF THE CHILD) “why didn’t you just abort him?”, a town where there are homeless families facing the “slow kill” of living on the street, and more. If this isn’t the culture of death, well, what the ^%(&%)# is? [Source]

Amen. A culture where biotech company Senomyx uses aborted fetal cells in the research and development of artificial flavor enhancers and work for companies like PepsiCo, Nestle, Kraft. They use human embryonic kidney cells taken from an electively aborted baby to produce taste receptors for testing.

I’m not much of one to join boycotts and besides I hate Pepsi, but also no longer consume soft drinks. Though Pepsi does have other products like Sobe Water, Green Teas, Starbucks Ready to drink coffees, etc that I will totally avoid as along as they continue association with Senomyx. Especially as other companies dropped their association when this was originally made news.

The president of Family Radio, Harold Camping, prediction that the Rapture will occur tomorrow May 21, 2011 is getting a lot of commentary and the question is does R.E.M feel fine.

I’ve noticed that a lot of the commentary on the social networks and new sites is predominantly of the secular “look at those crazy Christians” variety. That Camping’s views are pretty much lumped together with all Christians. People have also had much fun with the idea of the Rapture as popularized by the Left Behind series. Though I doubt most realize that the idea of the Rapture is certainly not universal among Protestants and of course totally alien to Catholics and the Orthodox. Of course the Rapture is rather a modern idea invented by John Nelson Darby a Irish Lawyer and the father of dispensationalism later popularized by Scofield.

That Camping’s prophecy is mocked is not surprising and of course much of that criticism comes from Christians. The end of the world chicken littles are nothing new and often should be smiled at and laughed about. That Camping has made a previous prediction makes is more laughable and of course there was the Edgar Whisenant best seller on why the Rapture would occur in 1988, and not surprisingly he sold less copies when he subsequently predicted it in 1989. These types of false prophets are laughed at and of course they have no credibility.

Now if you want to be a false prophet and predict things that never happen and not only keep your credibility and even get a high paying job you need to be a environmental prophet. No matter how badly you off in predicting the future, it doesn’t matter as your latest prophecy will seem just as credible to many people.

For example President Barack Obama Science Advisor John P. Holdren predicted the “great die-off” for the 1980s. Oh well we all make mistakes. In 1986 Holdren predicted “carbon dioxide-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020. Just two years ago when queried on this:

Vitter: So you would stick to that statement?
Holdren: I don’t think it’s likely. I think we should invest effort – considerable effort – to reduce the likelihood further.

Vitter: So you would stick to the statement that it could happen?
Holdren: It could happen, and …

Vitter: One billion by 2020?
Holdren: It could.

Talk about faith.

Modern critics have noted his role in Paul Ehrlich’s famous wager with Julian Simon: Holdren chose five metals that he believed would be more expensive in ten years’ time due to scarcity, while Simon predicted each would be less expensive. A decade hence, Ehrlich’s group was $1,000 poorer (a chance to reduce their carbon footprint, perhaps).

Or how about Rachel Carson who wrote the book Silent Spring which was the death knell for millions who subsequently died of malaria? Lets forget about that bit of science prophecy and concentrate on Harold Camping.

• A 1990’s textbook said “some scientists estimate that the world’s known supplies of oil, tin, copper, and aluminum will be used up within your lifetime.
• Harrison Brown, a respected member of the National Academy of Sciences, published predictions in Scientific American in 1970 which estimated that humanity would totally run out of copper by 2000, and that lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would all be gone by 1990.
• Paul Ehrlich, famously predicted in his best-selling book The Population Bomb: “The battle to feed all humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines; hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”
• Ehrlich, in an article entitled “Eco-Catastrophe” in The Progressive magazine, offered a scenario in which four billion people would starve to death between 1980 and 1989, 65 million of whom would be Americans.
• “Within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” in the year 2000 Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia
• “[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Michael Oppenheimer
• “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” Life magazine, January 1970.

And the list of faulty environmental predictions go on and on and on and yet retain secular credibility.  Certainly there is a double standard among false prophets so if you are going to be one be a environmental false prophet.

Tom at Disputations asks “What the hell is the matter with Republican Catholics?” Because both parties have their favorite intrinsic evils that must be supported with few exemptions on either side. When the party faith collides with the Catholic faith we get another “Catholic” politician and another “Catholic” faithful who defends the politician as to why an intrinsic evil is not really an intrinsic evil.

The Rev. Michael Pfleger said Tuesday in a meeting with parishioners that if he is not reinstated as pastor of St. Sabina Catholic Church by this weekend, he will begin to preach at other churches.

In his first in-depth public remarks about his suspension by Cardinal Francis George, Pfleger told a group of about 150 people that he has received numerous offers to preach from churches throughout the city and the country and needs to get back to preaching.

He did not specify at what churches he might speak or their denominations.

Still, Pfleger insisted that the only way he will leave St. Sabina is if he is thrown out or if he believes God wants him to go.

“This has been very painful,” Pfleger said, choking back tears.

Jesus told the Apostles “He who hears you hears me.” If Fr. Pfleger wants to know God’s will for him he only has to follow his bishop. The road to sanctity follows the road of obedience to your bishop and obedience does not mean you follow only what prudential decisions you agree with. The wide path is the way of ego of making yourself preeminent over proper authority. A parish priest who is disobedient to his bishop is disobedient to God.

But for Fr. Pfleger and his Me-gisterium it is “He who hears me is better off” and his preaching must go on. I guess preaching on obedience will not be one of the topics covered.

So how long before he becomes an Episcopalian? Though I pray he repents and becomes submissive to his bishop and to Christ.

Pfleger spent about 90 minutes talking to the group and answering questions about his suspension and the future of the church.

He insisted that George never ordered him to become president of nearby Leo High School. Pfleger also said he did not disobey the cardinal by saying he was not qualified for such an assignment.

Pfleger added that the media received the letter from George suspending him before he did and that he never threatened to leave the Catholic Church if he were removed.

In fact, Pfleger told radio show hosts Tavis Smiley and Cornel West in April that he would look outside the Catholic Church if offered no other choice but to work at the Catholic high school.

While he has consulted with lawyers who told him that George had no legal right to suspend him, he had no intention of suing the Catholic Church, Pfleger said.

But Pfleger said one of his lawyers would send a letter to George saying he violated canonical law by suspending him.

Yes when you have a conflict with your bishop run to the lawyers. Surely that is what St. Padre Pio did when he had his priestly faculties suspended. St. Padre Pio had false charges ascribed to him, yet in obedience he was totally faithful and never complained. In contrast are the actions of Fr. Pfleger.

His answers are just so Clintonian.

[Source]

The intent of this post is not intended to mock those who have the cross of same-sex attraction (SSA), but to mock one of the latest arguments in favor of homosexual acts.

I saw a tweet the other day that was referencing what somebody else had said.

Brilliant! “How Many Gays Must God Create Before We Accept That He Wants Them Around?”

Brilliant was not the first thought that came to my mind. Apparently State Rep. Steve Simon recently offered up this line at a Minnesota Civil Law committee in regards to a Constitutional Amendment “Marriage recognized as only a union between one man and one woman.” Since then a YouTube video of this has gone viral to some extent along with being quoted extensively in tens of thousands of sources.

Unsurprisingly many of the sources passing on this phrase run to the secular and those who normally have no room for God in anything else.

As an argument I did LOL upon hearing it mainly because it was such a bad argument.

First off using this logic:

• God loves gays more than lesbians because he “created” more gays than lesbians.
• God loves heterosexual more than gays and lesbians because he “created” only a small percentage of gays and lesbians.

Or since alcoholism seems to have a genetic disposition does that mean God wants alcoholics around and that we must do nothing to impede their alcoholism.  The above argument would say so since there are more alcoholics that the number of people who have SSA.  Plus of course the argument can be seen a rediculous with simple substitutions such as “How Many Adulteress Must God Create Before We Accept That He Wants Them Around?”

Than there is the idea of God “creating gays”.  Scientific research so far has not identified any genetic disposition towards same-sex attraction.  So the idea of God creating persons with same-sex attraction is problematic on multiple levels including a scientific one.  If there is no genetic predisposition to SSA than in what sense did God create “gays”?  Does God decide when he ensouls life to give one a “gay soul”, another a “lesbian soul”, “bisexual soul”, or mainly a “heterosexual soul?  Perhaps they mean that since God does directly give each person life and that some people go on to have SSA that this means SSA is totally acceptable.  Though that argument would not differentiate between God’s ordained and permissive will.

Of course really the main thing is that this is an emotional rhetorical argument and not one that is suppose to be analyzed.

Now as for God wanting “gays” around, God loves each and everyone one of us regardless of whatever labels are placed on us.  He created each and every one of us by first creating the world and then on an individual level giving us a soul.  SSA is a cross I can’t imagine having to carry, but we are all called to carry a cross not to say our crosses are socially acceptable so that we don’t have anything to repent of.  Those that support homosexuality should be embarrassed that such a lame argument is being used to advance their cause.

I decided to write on this subject since I got an email from SNAP which is promoting what the legislator said.  You wouldn’t think this would be part of SNAP’s agenda at first blush, but I guess they must do all they can to downplay certain aspects of the 2004 John Jay report on priestly abuse.

I do not normally take delight in the death of a fellow human being. Nor do I support the death penalty. But, if there was one man on the planet whom it was important to kill, not to just let die, it was Osama bin Laden. You should not be able to murder well nigh to 3,000 Americans and others with impunity. If you commit such a crime, you should fear every moment of every day that U.S. Special Forces will come crashing through the door to bring you to justice. I am sure bin Laden knew better than to be captured alive. (Given the legal nightmare of Guantanamo, thank God he was killed on the spot!) It took a long time to track bin Laden down, too long, and it is impossible not to think that we might have reached this happy day earlier if we had not detoured through Baghdad. But, this is no time for recriminations. It is time to celebrate.

As I write these words, images of young people streaming into the streets in front of the White House chanting “USA” and singing the National Anthem are coming onto the television screen. If it were not so late and I did not have an early morning, I would drive down myself. Vengeance is not a healthy emotion, I know. Assassination is against the law, to be sure. But, better to indulge and go to confession. I am glad Osama bin Laden did not die in his bed, as I am glad Hitler did not die in his bed and as I am distressed hat Stalin and Mao did. Men who commit such evil do not deserve normal considerations of human sympathy or civilized respect. The world is well rid of bin Laden. It is a great day to be alive.

This is from a typical right-wing Catholic blogger. Oh wait it was from Michael Sean Winters of in the National Catholic Reporter. The Vatican’s statement was.

Osama bin Laden, as we all know, bore the most serious responsibility for spreading divisions and hatred among populations, causing the deaths of innumerable people, and manipulating religions for this purpose.

In the face of a man’s death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred.

No doubt Michael Sean Winters read this and immediately decided to do the opposite. If the Vatican urged us to celebrate his death he would take the opposite tone. Rather interesting that out of almost every single response I read on Catholic blogs his was the most militant and one that did not even offer a prayer for Osama’s soul.

We can certainly be glad that this threat was removed and human justice served. This was a man who did great evil and supported others to do the same. I don’t take any joy that he was killed on the spot while resisting and possibly using a woman as a hostage to protect himself. I am very happy to know that it was a Seal Team that carried out the operation considering that my fellow sailors were killed in the USS Cole attack.

I find it very interesting the reactions of liberals to this. Here was an operation with intelligence from secret foreign prisons and Gitmo where torture was used that then used the military to kill several people without even notifying the government these people were in. It looks like information about the courier that led to this operation came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was tortured. Yet no cries of Obama the cowboy and human rights violator approving a mission without U.N. approval. There is some dispute about whether any of the information did indeed come about via so-called “enhanced interrogations”, but I don’t buy Sen. Feinstein’s denials as to this. When politicians use terms like enhanced and harsh instead of torture I simply don’t believe them. An intrinsic evil is still an evil even if you put a verbal bow on it.

Michael Sean Winters is against the death penalty, but he found an exception. So I guess he is now effectively on the side of Catholics who also think that generally the death penalty should be restricted, but that there are situations that can call for it – which is basically what the Church allows us to believe anyway. Mr. Winters talks you can not kill 3,000 people with impunity. Yet he supported Obama who is the most pro-abortion president in history and around 3,000 people die daily from abortion totally supported by the party he identifies with. Osama has less blood on his hands then the politicians and justices who gave us and kept legal abortion.