Punditry

Here is another crappy headline which tries to write an editorial in the lede. This time from my local newspaper the Flordia Times-Union

“Catholics in Jacksonville unmoved by Vatican scandal” with the subheadline “The pope is being scrutinized for his actions as a former cardinal.”

Yes we are unmoved by those Vatican scandals, how heartless of us. Funny how the word alleged get thrown in front of every murderer brought to court and you never see the word alleged in connection with a Vatican scandal.

The reactions of people interviewed in the article is much more sensible.  They are not falling for it.  They chalk it up mainly to media sensationalism. Though I would take exception to what one parishioner said.

“Even if he did something of that nature – if, if, if – I’m sure he’s probably been forgiven a long time ago, and you kind of just have to press on with life,” he said.

If a Pope had indeed been complicit in covering up or enabling priestly abuse, it seems to me that there could be a valid outcry for him to resign.  A Pope who knew he did such things and accepted the papacy knowing this would at least be unfit.  Though of course no pope ever has to resign and can not be forced to do so.  We have survived popes who truly committed scandal.

The story goes on to say that nobody has written to the Diocese about this subject.  There has been priestly sexual abuse in my diocese.  The difference is that it was promptly taken care of once known by both my previous and current Bishop.  These priest were not just reassigned and there has been good policy in place long before the Bishops addressed it in Dallas in 2002.

While Catholics in my area seem to be aware for the most part that there is no actual scandal involving the Pope, the media has been successful in getting out their message to others.  I was asked at work if the Pope was going to resign.  I replied no and at first my answer was chalked up to the Pope being “infallible”  At least it was an opportunity to explain infallibility is not impeccability  and how the articles on then-Cardinal Ratzinger were factually inaccurate.  No doubt though that the media has made great inroads into making many people believe that there is in fact a scandal concerning the Pope and many secularists and non-Catholics will find it easy to accept.

This generated scandal also distracts from the fact that there really are Catholics who covered up or enabled sexual abuse and the media’s attention should be directed to those cases and in fact all cases of sexual abuse.

In the continuing chapter, Fr. Pfleger on his Facebook page said:

“Sunday, I mentioned in my Sermon that I believe in married Priests and Woman Priests,” the Facebook comment reads.  “I was then told that I had to apologize for saying it durning [sic] a Sermon because that is not allowed, even though that is my opinion.

“I have received much hate from the right-winged who want my removal,” he added.  “Amazing… Nobody Blogged me or youtubed me about helping Save our children or Stopping the Violence…”
[Ref]

I just love the sweet sound of contriteness and when someone repents.  I rejoice along with the Angels – oh wait.

Now as to his complaints for nobody talking about his “good works.”  Whatever good works he does, does not require any special pointing out.  As followers of Christ what we do should be out of love of God and neighbor and being pointed out for any special praise.  Besides it would not simply cancel out his being in dissent with the Church anyway.

I guess the Archdiocese must have borrowed got a gun from the gun shop owner Fr. Pfleger previous threatened to  “snuff” and forced him to issue an apology.  I would have a little more respect for Father here if had refused to apologize because he held women’s ordination to be a truth not to be denied.  Instead he takes the cowards way out and issues what is in effect a lie since he is in no way contrite for his actions as his Facebook page shows.

Well I guess it is a case of being careful about what you would ask for.  I had hoped said on Twitter that Fr. Pfleger should apologize for his apology – and he did exactly that to his Facebook sycophants.

Plus the Archdiocese does not come off scott free in this either.  They asked him to apologize and then put the problematic  non-apology on the Diocesan site.  Does charity demand that we accept an apology that textually shows it is not a real apology at all?

Hat Tip Matt C. Abbott

The Archdiocese of Chicago acted fairly quickly in posting Fr. Pfleger so-called apology.

“On Sunday, April 11, while preaching a sermon on the power of fear, I was referring to the fear that paralyzed the apostles, locking them in a room, leaving only John and the women at the foot of the cross. I stated that is why I believe women ought to be able to be ordained, as well as priests ought to be able to get married.”

“While this is my personal opinion, I do respect and follow the Catholic Church teachings, and I am sorry I failed to do this.”

No doubt Cardinal George will feel himself off the hook now, though would surely love to be totally wrong on this.

How about an Archdiocesan teaching moment here on Church teaching and the levels of Church teaching?

Fr.  Pfleger seems to have taken the Catholic politician “personally opposed but …” dodge and stood it on its head.  “I’m personally for, but …”  The lasts sentence make zero sense and is itself opposed to Church teaching.

Fr. Pfleger can have whatever opinion he wants on the issue of priest celibacy in regards to Church discipline.  Women ordination is another matter.

How about taking a gander at what Vatican II said in Lunem Gentium.  And let us start with just the fourth level of Church Teaching.

LG 25: “Religious submission of mind and of will must be shown in a special way to the authentic Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff even when he is not defining, in such a way, namely, that the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to according to his manifested mind and will, which is clear either from the nature of the documents, or from the repeated presentation of the same doctrine, or from the manner of speaking.”

So at first glance “Religious submission of mind and will” must be given to the teaching that women can not be ordained.  There is no room for personal view here,  There is either “Religious submission of mind and will” or there is not.  Fr. Pfleger needs to recant and to repent of his support of women’s ordination.  This is not an “oops” situation where personal beliefs accidentally got inserted into preaching taken care of by a quick apology.

His apology further confuses the issue by making it seem acceptable to have a personal opinion against Church teaching.  He really needs to apologize for his apology.

The problem is actually worse since this teaching goes beyond “Religious submission of mind and of will”, as serious as that is.  When the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was asked about the level of teaching contained in Pope John Paul II’s Ordination Sacerdotalis the Responsum ad Dubium stated.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

This is something that must be believed with “Divine and Catholic Faith.”  The apology seemingly accepted by the diocese makes a mockery of what Catholics are to believe.  I looked all through Lunem Gentium and I just can’t find the “my personal opinion” exception.

“While it is my personal opinion that Fr. Pfleger should be dragged out and shot after severe torture, I do respect and follow the Catholic Church teachings, and I am sorry I failed to do this.”

Yeah that sentence really makes a lot of sense  in light of Church teaching – or as much sense as Fr. Pfleger’s did.

I do pray that Fr. Pfleger recants and repents of this error and that the good Cardinal clarifies the error in the apology.

The infamous Father Pfleger of Chicago has withstood creating scandal before and even got an award last week from Cardinal George for his service. You have to wonder what will happen now that he has upped the anti by supporting woman’s ordination.

I never could understand how this priest could remain so long with only one public rebuke about his political comments which he followed for about a whole week or two.  Part of the dynamic it seems to me is that he is a pastor of a church where the parishioners are mainly Blacks.  He seems to be quite popular there and so there is probably a worry about what would happen if he was yanked as pastor.  Though I think the main concern should be the content of what he teaches and how it actually conforms to Catholic teacher.

I also don’t understand his appeal among his parish.  His Mass is like a minstrel show without the blackface. Like he is mimicking the stereotype of the Black preacher.  I find it rather offensive that just because your congregation is a majority of one race that you have to change the style of how you preach to reach out to them.  Kind of like when Hillary Clinton was campaigning and facing a Black church affected a slow Southern drawl and changed grammar.

Carl Olson puts it rather succinctly.

Fr. Pfleger is, by any reasonable measure, not only a “controversialist,” but a race-baiter, a loud-mouthed hater, a lousy theologian, and a heretic. His recent remarks are not the remarks of a “good priest and pastor.” Here’s hoping that he is disciplined in a swift and appropriate manner.

Should Fr. Pfleger be fired over this. Well I would say yes since he should have been removed some time ago. Heresy at the pulpit certainly needs to be addressed and I hope that Cardinal George will address this problem instead of making statements like he did last week.

…Fr. Pfleger has been a controversialist; and controversy is easier to report on than is love.  Fr. Plfeger has spoken in anger, sometimes unjustly or uncharitably; and anger is easier to capture on the camera than is love.  But Fr. Pfleger is a Catholic priest and a pastor, and in that capacity, like all good priests and pastors, he acts out of love.  Ask his people.  Ask the sick he has visited and the dying he has attended.  Ask the troubled he has consoled.  Ask the young people he has counseled and the school children he has supported.

As any armchair theologian knows, when people act they are seeking a good even when what they are doing might be objectively evil. Fr. Pfleger certainly might be acting out of love – willing the good to another – but that does not excuse his past conduct and especially does not excuse open dissent with the Magisterium of the Church and ultimately the will of Christ. What Cardinal George said can be equally applied to every priest and thus also any bad priests who are visited the sick, etc.

I would suggest that people email Cardinal George about this with a short and charitable message.

archbishop@archchicago.org

Sometimes you would think everyday is opposite day in regards to the media.

The one public leader who did the most covertly to help the Jewish people during WWII is of course vilified by the media as being anti-Semitic and not doing anything.

Now we have the case of one Cardinal who as he became aware of individual cases of priestly abuse and later the scope of the abuse scandal  reacted to the problem.  As Pope he  is now of course vilified as not only not doing enough, but through his actions contributing to the problem.

The media’s opposite day though does not just effect reporting in regards to the Pope.  Mostly all reporting on the Catholic Church is backwards as if every story is run through a simple inverter.

Now apparently the media is under the impression that laicization confers an ontological change in regards to a sexual abuser.  That somehow once a priest involved in the depravity of sexual abuse when laicized all problems will subsequently go away.  I guess Stephen Kiesle didn’t get the message since after he was laicized he got married and then went on to abuse others after this.  For the media it does not matter that the priest in this case was already removed from ministry by his Bishop.

You have to wonder why it is that the ire is directed to then-Cardinal Ratzinger and not the California courts who gave Stephen Kiesle a light sentence and then destroyed the evidence after a two year probation.

The media does an excellent service when it exposes how abuse was mishandled, hidden, or the problem shuffled off to another parish/diocese.  Great evil has been done by those who contributed to the problem instead of protecting their flock.  It is hard to come up with a good reason why bishops would shuffle abusive priests in the first place.  It is safe to say there motives were not to inflict abuse on more victims.  Perhaps some thought that treatment programs would actually work or that a change of scenery would be just the thing — An almost criminal naiveté.  Or simply as so many do they justified the act to hide scandal or to make a problem seem to just go away.  Sin always twists reason until so many vapid justification might seem actually defensible.  Add to this a denial of exactly what they had done and the efforts to hide this we came to the current situation that first broke out here, then places in Europe, and sadly we will find the same in other countries as time goes on.  I have wondered why so many Irish bishops have resigned and yet only one American Cardinal did. It is not as if we didn’t have plenty of protectors of abusers here.  Maybe the Irish bishops had more shame for their actions, I just don’t know.  We have had plenty of diocese pay out millions to those abused, yet the enablers of abuse are pretty much left in place.  I wish that famous Catholic guilt would have been more effective for those destined to wear millstones if they do not repent.

These cases also go to the problem of what you do with sexual abusers generally? Priestly abusers must of course be removed from ministry, but I wonder if just washing your hands of them and releasing them to the general public is the best process?  Those involved with sexual abuse are rarely cured of this and as history has shown will go on and abuse others even if they had spent a term in prison. Societies answer of having a list of sexual abusers where people can find if they are living in their neighborhoods hasn’t prevented abuse in some cases.  The Church just can’t send abusers off to a remote monastery to live out the rest of their lives.  Abusers often see themselves as the victim and are unlikely to remain there.  The Church also can not run a prison for such individuals, that is the role of society which unfortunately is prone to releasing abusers pack into society.  Considering the recidivism rates for sexual abuse should the sentences become lifetime sentences?  There is the case of Alessandro Serenelli who attempted to rape Saint Maria Goretti and who did repent of his act and later lived a life of penance.  Cases like this are rare and most abusers are not helped via the world of psychiatry. These are the questions we should be grasping with instead of the stupdity  of trying to link Pope Benedict XVI as a problem in regards to priest abuse.

When I first saw The Loser Letters advertised I wasn’t much interested. It wasn’t until I read more about it and hear d and interview with Mary Eberstadt, the author, on Al Kresta’s show that I knew it was a book right up my alley.  In some ways it follows in the tradition of C.S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters, except this time an atheist convert writes a series of letters giving advice to the “new atheists.”

The letters from from the point of view of a twenty-something women convert to atheism  seeks to help out the new atheist in addressing questions they either give short shrift to or have totally ignored.  A.F. Christian (A Former Christian) really loves the books of all the new atheists that have hit the charts and just wants to give some helpful advice.

What results is a brillant sharp critique on major areas that the new atheists or even the old atheists never address.  Many of the things she brought up I had never noticed before such as the lack of women among the new atheists.

Since some jokers out there thing it is funny to use my email to sign me up to dissident Catholic organizations I got this one today.

Warning for Commonweal Readers

Dear Friend of Commonweal,

It has come to our attention that some readers are receiving fraudulent email messages claiming they are from Commonweal Magazine and concerning access to your account.

It then goes on to show a sample of the faked emails.

Commonweal should have sent out similar emails some time ago.

Warning for Commonweal Readers

It has come to our attention that all of our readers have been receiving fraudulent Catholic magazines from writers claiming they are Catholic. We are concerned about the possible confusion between actual Catholic teaching and the Commonweal magazine emailed to your home.

There have been some good explanations of the Fr. Murphy case in regards to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and how then-Cardinal Ratzinger was involved in the case.  I think though that Jimmy Akin has the clearest and best presentation of the Fr. Murphy case I have seen.  He lays out the facts as we know them along with the Church’s process and timeline of events.  He also points out areas where the handling of the case could prudentially be criticized.

The hysteria that the New York Times generated in it’s piece which could be described as a “Pope hunt” go so far beyond the evidence that it is hard to see other than malice involved.  Though Jimmy Akin also charitably addresses this aspect.

Carl Olson at Ignatius Press looks at the announcement of  Pullman’s new book.

Using the four Gospels as its source, The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ, which will be published on Wednesday, has the naive young Mary giving birth to twins after a visit by a mysterious stranger claiming to be an angel.

Hmmm, how clever: Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde meets the Four Evangelists. Per the usual rewritings of the life of Jesus (now taken on by approximately 5,267,201 authors, of whom 83.54% deny the existence of Jesus), Pullman relies on the four Gospels while seeking to undermine, subvert, and dismiss much or most of what is in the Gospels. Thus, Pullman’s book “contains manipulated versions of familiar episodes from the Gospels, including the Wise and the Foolish Virgins. According to Pullman: ‘I think my version is much closer to what Jesus would have said. The version in the Gospels is so different from what he said usually.'” This is something like the Jesus Seminar on crack—which is akin to a drunk on crack—when it comes to biblical scholarship. (It is really just a riff on the old “historical Jesus” vs. “Christ of faith” debate. Yawn.) Think of it: Pullman denies that the Gospels aren’t accurate in recording Saying A of Jesus because it doesn’t seem similar enough to Sayings B, Q, and Z, which also appear in the Gospels, but which are accepted as being more legitimate because…um…well…Pullman says so.

Carl’s headline was “Philip Pullman apparently missed the entire 20th century” which is quite appropriate. The title of Pullman’s book also shows that he missed some of the basic apologetics arguments by C.S. Lewis of Lord, Lunatic, or Liar or maybe he has settled on he is both a lunatic and a liar.

What amazes me of the new atheists is the absolute hubris. As if nobody throughout the history of Christianity noticed the differences in the Gospel accounts. It is so obvious that they have never even attempted to see what the Christian defense to their arguments might be and just plow on as if they are saying something valuable and unique. Their amazing insights to aid us poor ignorant Christians who have never attempted to bring reason to the Gospels.

The new atheists such as Pullman also seem to have also missed the 13th century. They would learn a lot from the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas and how he answered questions. While they obviously are not going to argue on the same side of this saint, at least they could take up the format. St. Thomas Aquinas presented the arguments of others accurately and in many cases made better arguments for a position then had been originally presented. He took opposing arguments seriously and then responded to them. The new atheists don’t even erect a strawman. The amount of straw they use might fill up part of a trouser leg or a shirt sleeve, but not a full strawman. Maybe they are waiting for evolutionary forces to create a full strawman from a primordial straw bale.

As a former atheist the new atheists rather embarrass me. Give me an honest atheist seeking the truth any day. But dogmatic atheism is another story.

I cannot pass over the actions of the Catholic Health Association and an organization called Network, a lobby of American religious Sisters, who said, quite publicly, that what the bishops have taught is false. They said that the legislation does provide an adequate framework for a Catholic to follow his or her conscience about abortion. So, we had a trade organization — the Catholic Health Association — which calls itself “Catholic” and we had religious Sisters who call themselves Catholic, saying, “Sorry, bishops, you got it wrong, here is the teaching of the Church.”

The Lord Jesus Christ, unworthy though the bishops are, called the bishops to lead the people in faith; He did not call anybody in the Catholic Health Association and he did not call any of the Sisters in Network. To boot, those Sisters who signed the Network document said that they speak for 59,000 American Sisters — that would be every last Sister in the U.S. Yet, another grouping of Sisters came out publicly expressing their disagreement with Network. Unfortunately, the claim that these Sisters in Network represent all Sisters is actually what is false, not the teaching of the bishops.

And, of course, people like Speaker Pelosi could not do enough to wave the letter from the Catholic Health Association and the letter from Network to provide cover for Democratic legislators who wanted to waffle in protecting innocent human life. Speaker Pelosi is not called by Jesus Christ to lead the Catholic faithful, any more than the religious Sisters in Network are, any more than the leadership of the Catholic Health Association is.

The bishops are called to teach, sanctify, and govern. But, as I said before, with regard to the Holy Father, if people will not recognize authority, then they cannot lay responsibility at the feet of those to whom they are disobedient. The pope and the bishops are only responsible when their authority is accepted. The then-Cardinal Ratzinger himself has said, in our contemporary world, the word “obedience” has disappeared from our vocabulary and the reality of obedience has been anathematized.

In this way, very serious harm is being done to the Church because people in the Church wonder, “Who speaks for Christ? Does the Catholic Health Association speak for Christ? Does Network, an organization of religious Sisters, speak for Christ? Do they teach with the authority of the bishops? Is the bishops’ teaching just another opinion?”[reference]

While I agree with quite a lot of what the good bishop is saying, I think the issue is not as clear as he makes out. Can a faithful Catholic in good conscience disagree with a statement by the Bishop’s Conference on legislations for good reason. I would say the answer is yes. When the bishops in union with the Pope teach on something such as abortion, contraception, etc then certainly they are acting in their capacity as the official teachers of the faith. When a Bishops Conference talks about the prudence of a piece of legislations, it is usually another matter. The prudential question in this case was whether or not this bill funded abortion – I certainly thought the evidence was quite strong that in fact it did. The bishops in this case had advisors and other help to make a very informed decision on this and so were well capable to give solid prudential advice on this matter that should have been accepted. Though I still think it was possible for someone to weigh all the evidence and come to another conclusion without sinning. I certainly don’t think this is what the CHA and the LCWR did – they were never really bothered by the possibility of Federally funded abortions and let socialized medicine trump any possibility of them being wrong. Ideology came before really looking at the bill and seeing this as a real possibility. No doubt in the future on the issue of immigration the Bishops will support a bill that includes amnesty. If so than many progressive Catholics will be demanding that other Catholics follow the bishops in this regard. As regards immigration there are certainly many prudential questions that Catholics may disagree on and other areas where they may not disagree. I bring this up because I think the bishops versus sisters meme has gone a bit far without the necessary caveats. As Father Z mentioned before “Keep in mind that, in the matter of the vote on the health legislation, we are in the nebulous cloud of contingent, prudential judgments. Therefore, real clarity of the facts of the legislation is vital.”

That being said I think the whole health care bill fiasco proves that dissent kills. The actions of the CHA and LCWR were highly publicized and more than likely helped to bring about passage of the bill. Pro-abortion types certainly paraded their actions about including the President. I it hard to know how this affected individual Catholic congressman and their votes – but it certainly didn’t help and in fact provided a cover for a yes vote. A house divided can not stand and when religious publicly act in this way we certainly see the results.

Two-Thirds of Catholics in the Congress voted for this bill. It could not have been passed without Catholic help. Poorly catechized Catholic politicians is nothing new and like the poor they will always be with us. What bothers me is the lack of an appropriate response to dissident Catholics. I think the USCCB did a fairly good job in opposing this legislation, but they could have responded better to the CHA/LCWR situation and making it clear that they had no legitimate voice in supporting the bill. Catholics such as Nancy Pelosi can talk about being devout Catholics in good standing while making a mockery of the faith in support of murdering the unborn. She has indeed spoken with her bishop and then went on obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin with not a word about it. She went on to ask St. Joseph to intercede with a bill that funds abortion. I guess she got St. Joseph and Moloch confused. Would be nice to see Catholic politicians ask intercessions for something that does not include intrinsic evils.

The problem of the LCWR is nothing new. The Vatican’s Apostolic Visitation happened because the evident problems were not being addressed here in the United States. It should never have reached this state – but ever since dissent to contraception, dissent has pretty much been ignored hoping ti will go away. The CHA has taken previous stands in disregard of Catholic truth before and yet they are still allowed to use Catholic in their name – something they need permission for canonically. They are not a trade organization, but a “betrade” organization. How many innocents have died due to chemical abortion caused by abortafacients such as the pill? I wonder how many marriages and families have been destroyed by the false promise of contraception? How many people do dissidents have to kill, before some action is taken to bring them back into the folds of the Church?

There are certainly some Bishops such as Bishop Vasa who have effectively fought against dissidents in their diocese and have brought some back to the truth, while making it clear that their positions are not acceptable. Clarity is so important and when dissidents range free they do untold damage. No doubt most bishops are correctly upset by the actions of CHA/LCWR and others, I just hope they realize this situation came out of nowhere. The L.A. Religious conference with it’s many dissident speakers occurred during the end of the health care debate. Many diocese send there people there so I guess generating more dissidents is the priority.

There will always be dissidents and people who teach a false Gospel. Faithful Catholics should make sure that such are discredited and that the sweet truth of the Catholic faith is evident over poor imitations.