Roman Catholic Blog

Senator Barack Obama: Christianity Has Been “Hijacked” By The “Christian Right”

Credit where it's due: Hot Air: Video - Obama says Christianity has been “hijacked” by the “Christian Right”

Partial transcript:

“Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in a 30-minute speech before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ.

“Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us,” the Illinois senator said.

“At every opportunity, they’ve told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design,” according to an advance copy of his speech.

These words from Senator Obama annoyed me. I'm tired of this error. It's rooted in a lie.

Compare Senator Obama's words with the words of Christ:

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39)

"Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division; for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." (Luke 12:51-53)

Jesus knew His doctrine would cause division, and He demanded that each Christian be willing to choose Him over the love of any human person who refuses to choose Him and be conformed to His doctrine.

The myth of the all-accepting Jesus whose only doctrines were tolerance, love without judgement of external conduct (which is different than the judgement of interior disposition), charity without the courage to lovingly admonish sinners for fear of offending them, and peace at any cost (even the rejection of Christian doctrine), has long been used as a wedge to blind Christians into accepting, condoning, and even defending sin.

It's a natural progression from these errors to conclude that purpose of Christianity isn't to save our souls and help us get to heaven, it's supposed to "unite us".

Unite who?

Sin is fundamentally opposed to goodness, virtue, and truth. The darkness hates the light. Darkness and light cannot coexist peacefully. They cannot have unity.

How can those who hate and oppose every Christian moral teaching and fight those teachings tooth and nail, along with all those who call themselves Christians, but who water down Christianity or deny important doctrinal or moral teachings in order to please those who hate and oppose every Christian moral teaching, be united with faithful Christians who realize that matters of Christian faith and morality are not up for debate or issues on which there can be compromise without essentially denying Christ, rejecting His teaching, and replacing Christ and His teachings with a counterfeit Christ and a counterfeit doctrine?

Those who hate and oppose every Christian moral teaching and fight those teachings tooth and nail generally refuse to compromise (unless they experience a road to Damascus type of conversion). So Christians are the ones expected to compromise by watering down and/or denying the teachings of Christ while those who hate Christianity persist in their obstinate rejection of Christianity and their total opposition to any effort made by Christians to share Christian doctrine.

Incidentally, a conversion like St. Paul's is unlikely for those who hate the idea of God or those who hate and oppose every Christian moral teaching and fight those teachings tooth and nail. Yes, all things are possible with God, but God will not violate anyone's free will and force them to believe. Faith is a gift of grace, and everyone is extended sufficient grace to save their souls. However, not everyone accepts that gift of grace, and those who reject it are free to do so because our freedom is what allows us to merit the gift of salvation through cooperation with God's grace (without which salvation is impossible to any fallen human being).

St. Paul's conversion was only possible because his heart wasn't opposed to God and fixated on the renunciation of the moral law. Saul of Tarsus loved God and his zeal for the God of Israel combined with his genuine ignorance of the truth about Jesus Christ prior to his conversion were the reasons for his persecution against Christianity. Jesus appeared to Him because He knew St. Paul would love Him. He knew his heart and He gave St. Paul this extraordinary grace for the good of the whole Church.

I'm not saying that heretics, apostates, and obstinate sinners who habitually commit mortal sin cannot be reached by God's grace and experience conversion. I am merely saying that the interior disposition of such people renders such conversion difficult and unlikely because their inward orientation is turned against God. They have (to one degree or another) heard the teachings of Jesus Christ, but for some reason, they have recoiled in hatred at the sound of these teachings. Although it is possible the messenger or messengers who presented some of these people with these teachings scandalized them in some way (through hypocrisy, a distorted presentation of Christian doctrine, physical or mental abuse, etc.) such people aren't the ones I'm talking about, since God's justice will recognize the obstacles that hinder their faith and if there is the smallest crack in their hardened hearts that remains open to the truth, He can reach such people through grace and work the miracle of conversion. However, if a person loves themselves more than God to the point that they exclude God, or in essence, want to be God, wanting to be (themselves) the final authority on what is good and what is evil, it is very hard for such a person to have the capacity to be receptive to God's saving grace, and God will not force it on them. He will not save them in spite of their own rejection of Him and opposition to Him. If such people are also attached to and habitually commit mortal sin, their intellect is further darkened and their will is further weakened, making it even more difficult for them to accept God's grace.

I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing; not knowing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. Therefore I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, that you may be rich, and white garments to clothe you and to keep the shame of your nakedness from being seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten; so be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any one hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. (Revelation 3:15-20)

If someone rejects the notion of sin, how can they turn to the Savior? If someone refuses to admit they are sick, how can they turn to a doctor to be healed?

That is why it is why the side of darkness, namely the demons (the enemies of all human beings who are ultimately behind the campaign to lead us all away from God and into hell) work so diligently to instill doubt in our minds as to God's existence, instill a false sense of comfort and security that God will not condemn us if they can't convince us He does not exist, constantly distract us with the cares and concerns of this life, and with vanities, entertainments, and other ephemeral things, distorting our perceptions of the good things that God has created so that our weakened, warring, concupiscent passions will ignore the voice of reason and deny that we are fallible, flawed, fragile, weak, earthen vessels who must consider everything in the light of eternity and constantly pray and keep our eyes fixed on God if we hope to avoid the snares and entanglements along the straight, narrow, and difficult road to salvation which cannot be found without God's grace and which we will wander from if we fix our gaze on anything but Him for any length of time.

That is why Jesus taught that we must pray without ceasing:

And he told them a parable, to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart. (Luke 18:1)

"Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" (Matthew 7:7-11)

"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits. "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'" (Matthew 7:13-23)

Why some people freely choose to reject God and others choose to turn to Him and repent is something God understands, but we cannot fully understand in this life. There is a reason the Church speaks of "the mystery of iniquity".

Consider these passages from Sacred Scripture on the nature of sin, God's grace, some of the types of sin Christians must recognize as leading to damnation unless there is repentance and conversion, the suffering Christ foretold that faithful Christians would endure, the opposition faithful Christians will experience, the false teachings and philosophies which seek to rationalize and even justify sin presented by people outside and inside the Church that Christians must avoid, the constant call to conversion from God, and the mysteries of the human heart with respect to hearing and answering God's call, to help you discern who is really attempting to hijack Christianity:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can understand it? "I the LORD search the mind and try the heart, to give to every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings." (Jeremiah 17:9)

This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that one fate comes to all; also the hearts of men are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. (Ecclesiastes 9:3)

Why will you still be smitten, that you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. (Isaiah 1:5)

Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed." (Isaiah 6:10)

"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes. "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master; it is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Be-el'zebul, how much more will they malign those of his household." (Matthew 10:16-24)

"With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: `You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.' But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it." (Matthew 13:14-17)

And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." (Mark 2:17)

"For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man." (Mark 7:21-23)

And when he drew near and saw the city he wept over it, saying, "Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace! But now they are hid from your eyes. For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will cast up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side, and dash you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another in you; because you did not know the time of your visitation." (Luke 19:41-44)

Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did; but Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man. (John 2:23-24)

"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me." (John 8:44-45)

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber; but he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers."

This figure Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them.

So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before me are thieves and robbers; but the sheep did not heed them. I am the door; if any one enters by me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep." (John 10:1-15)

"I have said all this to you to keep you from falling away. They will put you out of the synagogues; indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do this because they have not known the Father, nor me." (John 16:1-3)

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all (kinds of) unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, and malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, implacable, unmerciful. Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. (Romans 1:18-32)

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. (1 Corinthians 10:13)

Now this I affirm and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds; they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart; they have become callous and have given themselves up to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of uncleanness. You did not so learn Christ! – assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus. Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. (Ephesians 4:17-24)

But fornication and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints. Let there be no filthiness, nor silly talk, nor levity, which are not fitting; but instead let there be thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be joint-partakers with them, for once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:3-10)

For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself. (Phillipians 3:17-21)

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep. For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven other persons, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomor'rah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked (for by what that righteous man saw and heard as he lived among them, he was vexed in his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trial, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. (2 Peter 2:1-10)

Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death. (James 1:13-15)

Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, `You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, `You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons. (Genesis 3:1-7)

There are people whose hearts are fixed in evil. Some are only temporarily lost and they will come to the Lord when they hear him call, but some have heard the seductive voice within them, a voice that has its origins in the spirit of this world, the concupiscence of the flesh, or in temptations from fallen angels (demons), and they have seen real or perceived goods which they know they can take for themselves despite the fact that such real or perceived goods cannot be taken in the manner in which they are considering without offending God, who is the source of all good things. They perceive God's gifts, but ignore the fact that no good thing they consider can exist without God's Almighty power calling it into being and holding it in existence. They ignore the fact that they are not the cause of their own being and that the good that is their own existence is also wholly dependent upon God. They see God's gifts and even their own existence as things that can be had without considering Him, as though all things that exist are independent of Him, or as though the truth about all things must conform to their own desires. They hear the seductive voice within them calling their attention to the forbidden fruit and somewhere, from deep inside them, their heart whispers, "Yes!"

Senator Obama wants Christians to ignore the fact that elective abortion is murder and forget that God has said, "You shall not kill". (Deuteronomy 5:17)

Senator Obama wants Christians to pretend that Jesus never said, "If you would enter life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:17)

[Note: Before the anti-war crowd tries to whitewash the evil of supporting legal, elective abortion by pointing to the Iraq war, remember that "You shall not kill" doesn't mean that we can't kill anything or anyone under any circumstances (otherwise we couldn't eat plants or meat). It doesn't mean that you can't execute the wicked or go to war either, since God commands the execution of wicked people repeatedly throughout the Old Testament and he also commands his people to go to war in the Old Testament. "You shall not kill" means you shall not murder, and murder is the direct and deliberate killing of an innocent human being, which was not the intention of the Iraq war and which is contrary to the mission of the soldiers in the Iraq war, so the Iraq war does not justify or excuse supporting a party that supports legal, elective abortion. Even if you maintain that the Iraq war is an unjust war, you can't justify bad behavior or supporting those engaging in bad behavior (the abortion on demand platform of the Democratic party) by pointing to real or perceived bad behavior on the part of others (such as the Iraq war campaign headed by Republican President George W. Bush an supported by many Americans from both political parties).]

Senator Obama wants Christians to ignore the many, many passages of Sacred Scripture that make it clear that sex is to be reserved to a union of one man and one woman united in marriage until death and which explicitly condemn sexual activity outside of such a union (including homosexual activity).

He wants Christians to ignore these teachings of Christ and His apostles which affirm the moral law described in the Old Testament for the sake of "unity".

The choice is yours, but consider this last passage:

Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?" Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." (John 6:60-69)

Jesus let those who ceased to believe in Him walk away and He did not compromise His teachings to bring them back or promote "unity". He promised suffering and persecution to his followers and the opposition of the world.

That is not the soft message of sweetness, tolerance, acceptance, diversity, and understanding many inside and outside Christianity would have us believe to be the teachings of Christ, but that's because those who present that counterfeit doctrine and counterfeit Christ have had another agenda for a long time.

The truth is: If you are finding it easy to be a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Any thoughts?

Time Magazine - Joe Kennedy's First Marriage: Still On

The Holy See has overturned the declaration of nullity granted to Joe Kennedy of his marriage to Sheila Rauch.

The original declaration of nullity created quite a bit of controversy, as well as accusations that the annulment process is really just "divorce Catholic-style", once Sheila Rauch began an effort to demonstrate the marriage was, in fact, valid.

And Sheila Rauch was right.

Here's the story: Joe Kennedy's First Marriage: Still On

Here's a section of the article:

The most controversial "marriage that never was" in recent U.S. political history is back. Sources tell TIME that the Vatican has reversed the annulment of Joseph P. Kennedy II's marriage to Sheila Rauch. The annulment had been granted in secrecy by the Catholic Church after the couple's 1991 no-fault civil divorce. Rauch found out about the de-sanctification of their marriage only in 1996, after Kennedy had been wedded to his former Congressional aide, Beth Kelly, for three years.

The annulment was the subject of Rauch's 1997 book Shattered Faith, which lambasted her ex-husband and was severely critical of the Catholic Church's proceedings, which made the marriage (which had produced twin boys) null and void in the eyes of the church. Rauch argued that Kennedy was able to unilaterally "cancel" nearly 12 years of marriage because of his clan's influence in the church. Kennedy argued at the time that the annulment was the right thing to do in religious terms. Few observers thought the appeal to Rome by Rauch, an Episcopalian, had a chance against the well-connected Kennedy. With women's groups loudly on Rauch's side, the controversy may have contributed to Kennedy's decision to give up his plans to seek re-election to Congress in 1998.

Reached by TIME in her Massachusetts home on Tuesday, Rauch said that she had just recently been informed by Boston Archdiocese officials of her successful appeal. "I am very pleased," she told TIME. "There was a real marriage. It was a marriage that failed, but as grown-ups we need to take responsibility for that. The [annulment] process was dishonest, and it was important to stand up and say that." But Rauch says she worries that the practice, particularly in the U.S., of giving what she called "easy annulments" will continue. "They don't give people a fair defense. The Boston Archdiocese doesn't even tell you that you can appeal to Rome." Reached by TIME, Kennedy's office provided no reaction from the former Congressman.
Erroneously dubbed "Catholic divorce," an annulment in fact holds that a failed marriage was never valid in the eyes of the Church. With divorce strictly prohibited in Catholicism, annulments allow Catholics to remarry before a priest and continue receiving the sacraments. Several years after his 1991 civil divorce to Rauch, Kennedy obtained an annulment from a Church tribunal in Massachusetts so he could have a Church ceremony with Kelly. The couple had already been married in a 1993 civil ceremony, but needed the Roma Rota appeals tribunal at the Vatican to uphold the Massachusetts annulment verdict before they could be married by a priest. Now with Rauch's successful appeal, that cannot happen, unless Kennedy wins a counter-appeal.

The Roma Rota's ruling, written in Latin, was reached in 2005, and had been kept secret while the official written notice was being prepared, said a source in Rome familiar with the case. Rauch's successful appeal effectively reinstates the Kennedy-Rauch marriage in the eyes of the Vatican. The case once again highlights this unique Catholic Church proceeding. Some 75% of annulments each year are from the United States, where there are an estimated 8 million divorced and remarried Catholics. The subject came up in the 2004 Presidential campaign after word spread that John Kerry had obtained an annulment of his first marriage. Another prominent Catholic who has had a marriage annulled is former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who is now running for the Republican Presidential nomination.

This decision is a very good thing.

The Holy See under both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI has long maintained that the annulment process has been abused, especially in the United States.

I personally know orthodox Catholic priests and lay people who sit on marriage tribunals where they have witnessed these tribunals declaring marriages that are most probably valid as invalid, despite their own objections.

In the Diocese of Orange, the former head of the tribunal left the priesthood to get married.

Although the abysmal catechesis in the United States has wreaked havoc, it is puzzling how Catholics can frequently enter invalid marriages if they are properly prepared by the priest who marries them (barring dishonesty on the part of one or both parties when entering the marriage).

If so many priests are incompetent in assisting couples in their preparation for marriage, how else might they be failing in terms of transmitting the authentic teachings of the Church?

Apparently Joe Kennedy was initially able to get something King Henry VIII was unable to get, the dissolution of a valid marriage with the official sanction of legitimate Church authority.

That's something to think about.

Thanks be to God that the Holy See has rectified the matter.

Any thoughts?

Divine Intervention? The Third Republican Debate: Lightning Strikes As Rudy Giuliani Defends His Pro-Abortion Views

Here are some more highlights from the debate:

Any thoughts?

Motu Proprio Update

The London Times Online has two articles about the impending motu proprio on the Tridentine Mass. The articles give some insight into the delay of the document's publication. However, it must be remembered that the Times isn't always accurate when reporting on religious matters.

Here they are:

Latest on Tridentine Mass

Pope set to bring back Latin Mass in face of opposition

Quote:

The return of the Tridentine Rite would represent a triumph for traditionalists and be an indication of the Pope’s determination to reinforce conservative Catholic doctrine as one of his most powerful weapons in the fight against secularism.

In Brazil last week the Pope made clear his conservative sympathies, emphasising that there could be no relaxation on the Church’s teaching on sexual ethics and abortion.

In a private audience with one leading traditionalist, Alice von Hildebrand, Pope Benedict said that he intended to publish the permission to celebrate the 16th-century rite this month.

The document had been expected earlier but is understood to have been delayed after a seven-page document of objections by German bishops was sent to the Pope.

Among other things, the Germans were anxious about a Good Friday prayer calling for the conversion of the Jews. A wider revolt by bishops’ conferences around the world would have seen off the indult, but in the end the Germans were isolated in their protest. However, when the permission is published, it is thought likely to exclude prayer for the conversion of the Jews, which leaders of the German and the British councils of Christians and Jews have spoken out against.

It could also include an “opt-out clause”, allowing bishops to prohibit it at a local level, which would placate both the German and the modernist French bishops.

Mrs von Hildebrand, 83, an author and lecturer who lives in the US, told The Times: “I know that the Pope favours the Tridentine Mass very, very much. I asked him if there was any chance that the permission would be given. He said it would be given in May.”

It is unclear if the document will still come out in May because of the German opposition, but it is coming, and that is what matters most.

Any thoughts?

Time Magazine: A Step Backward for Pope Benedict?

Time Magazine demonstrates a good deal of ignorance with this article lamenting the impending motu proprio and Pope Benedict's doctrinal orthodoxy: A Step Backward for Pope Benedict?

When I read things like this, I always shake my head in disbelief:

Eighteen months ago, one Rome-based, progressive cleric had said he was "surprised to see that [Benedict] seems to be open to hear new ideas." But today, the same priest is disappointed. There has been no sign of any of the hoped-for reforms: overturning the ban on communion for divorced and remarried Catholics, reconsidering the celibacy requirement for priests, allowing gays in seminaries, or a softening of the condom ban to allow for distribution in AIDS-ravaged Africa. The release last month of the Pope's final document on what had seemed to be a convivial and intellectually open October 2005 bishops' meeting on the Eucharist is a good example of the Pontiff's approach. According to a senior Church official who participated: "He took all that debate of the Synod, and then gave us a document that simply defends the status quo." This same official acknowledges a bit of past excessive optimism on Benedict: "People were hoping that with his intellectual acumen and understanding of theology, he'd be in a position to make some of these changes. Unfortunately, at this point, I don't think we'll see any of them."

Who in the hell is this Rome-based "progressive" cleric? He's obviously not a faithful Catholic, whoever he is, and he is either ignorant of Church teaching (which is possible, but unlikely) or he is insidiously preying on the ignorance of non-Catholics (or poorly catechized Catholics) in the media.

Moreover, I can't understand the hubris of "progressives" (inside and outside the Church) clamoring for the Pope (and Catholics) to abandon Church teaching (which means ignoring Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Living Magisterium and denying the authority, infallibility, and indissoluability of the Church).

I thought "progressives" (liberals) were supposed to be sensitive and respectful of the beliefs of others?

Don't they realize they may as well be asking when the Jews will "get with the times" and accept that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God, accept the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and embrace Christianity?

The article later says this:

In fact, the one major disciplinary about-face expected is this coming document on the Latin Mass, a concession to the ultra-conservatives, who have been living and praying on the fringe of the Church since the reforms of the Second Vatican Council brought in mass in the vernacular. Said one Rome-based priest: "Opening up the Latin rite to anyone would amount to the Church turning back the reforms of Vatican II." A Vatican official who has worked closely with the Pope said that loosening rules on the Latin rite has been a long-time personal goal of Ratzinger, who had led what turned out to be failed negotiations in the early 1980s to bring back into the fold the followers of the breakaway French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who have defied the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

The Vatican official says that Benedict believes that the Council's legacy "has been abused," and finding a way to widen access to the Latin rite "has always remained in his heart." Still, even mainstream members of the Roman hierarchy are opposed, fearing that it will exacerbate divisions within the Church. French bishops have openly argued against it. The Pope's old office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith last spring, privately advised against the motu proprio, the Vatican official said. Still, Benedict does not appear swayed. The professor Pope may be happy to have a conversation on doctrine, but he knows he always has the last word.

That last sentence may as well have read: Curses! Blast the fact that Christ said the Church would be built on Peter (the Rock)! The pope always has the last say! Why won't he just abuse his authority and do something that would dissolve his own office and deny his own authority?

The whole article conflates dogma and doctrine with Church disciplines.

In his Pocket Catholic Dictionary, Fr. John Hardon, S.J. helps explain the meaning of dogma and doctrine here:

Doctrine - Any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily in the perennial exercise of the Church's magisterium or teaching authority. Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God. (Etym. Latin doctrina, teaching.)

Here is a detailed explanation of church discipline: Ecclesiastical Discipline

One good thing about the article is that it shows (once again) that the motu proprio is coming soon.

Any thoughts?

Mahonyfest 2007 In Words & Moving Pictures

Special thanks to Allyson Smith for attending the Religious Education Congress and filming the videos!

The Mass featured in these images is described here: Bongos, Dancers, and Father-Mother God: Richard Rohr’s Mass at the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress

Any thoughts?

Vatican Secretary of State: Dissident Catholics More Worrying than Atheists

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican's Secretary of State, has said that dissident Catholics are more worrisome than atheists. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone's comments were published in the December 7 edition of L'Avvenire, the official newspaper of the Italian bishops' conference.

Here's the story: Vatican Secretary of State: Dissident Catholics More Worrying than Atheists

Here's a quote:

Italian journalist Gianni Cardinale, asked Bertone about atheists who may support the Pope on certain issues such as his stance on Islam. "If I can put it in a sound-bite," Bertone said as translated by Vatican reporter John Allen, "the church doesn't really worry about atheists, however devout, because they're out of her spiritual jurisdiction, so to speak. Much more worrisome are those inside the church who work to distort its faith and moral principles, or who oppose the pope and his design for renewal of the church."

The new Secretary of State is, with these sentiments, very much in line with Pope Benedict. The Pope has paid special attention to Catholics who work to distort the faith and moral principles. Time and time again in meetings with bishops, especially those from the West, the Holy Father has insisted that they pay special attention to Catholic politicians who violate Church teaching on matters of life and family.

The Holy Father clearly understands the predominant errors of this present age. These errors were a large part of the "dictatorship of relativism" he mentioned in his speech before the conclave that ended with his election as Pope.

"We are moving," he declared, toward "a dictatorship of relativism . . . that recognizes nothing definite and leaves only one's own ego and one's own desires as the final measure."

Cardinal Bertone's words reflect the recognition that this dictatorship is attacking the faith not just from without, but also from within, as has been evidenced by Catholic conferences endorsed by Catholic laity, priests, religious, bishops, and even Cardinals where speakers who openly dissent from Church teaching on matters of faith an morals, particularly in the areas of sexual morality and the "ordination" of women. Groups such as Call to Action, known for their open dissent against Church teaching on these issues have been supported by dissenting priests and bishops for years. At the 1995 Call to Action conference, the controversial Bishop of Partenia, Jacques Gaillot, the auxiliary Bishop of Detroit Thomas Gumbleton, and theologian Hans Küng, who was rescinded his authority to teach Catholic theology, were among the featured speakers. Others who have supported Call to Action include: Bishop Raymond Lucker of New Ulm, Minnesota (deceased), Fr. Leonardo do Boff, Fr. Charles Curran, Sr. Ivone Gebara, Sr. Joan Chittister, Sr. Jeannine Gramick (of "New Ways Ministries"), Sr. Helen Prejean (of "Dead Man Walking"), Fr. Robert Nugent (of "New Ways Ministries"), Fr. Matthew Fox (of "Creation Spirituality"), Fr. Michael Crosby, Fr. Richard McBrien (of Notre Dame University), Bishop Pedro Casaldaliga, Bishop Raymond Hunthausen, Bishop Jacques Gaillot, Bishop Albert Ottenweller (retired) of Steubenville, Ohio, Bishop William Hughes (retired) of Covington, Kentucky, Edwina Gateley, and many, many more Catholic dissidents.

Let's pray that the confusion spread by these "Catholic" leaders will be undone so that the hearts and souls of many who have been led astray will hear the voice of the Lord, turn, and be converted. Let us also pray for these "Catholic" leaders, who have also been led astray. It's easy to see these dissenting leaders as the enemy, but we must remember that they are our brothers and sisters in Christ and they have been deceived, as all of us can be deceived. Just as we still love family members who abandon the Catholic faith, we must still love these Catholic dissenters. Just don't drink their Kool-Aid!

Any thoughts?

Pope Benedict XVI Ignores Protests Against Restoring The Tridentine Mass

The Australian is reporting that Pope benedict XVI has decided to go forward with the long awaited motu proprio on the Tridentine Mass, despite protests from "senior cardinals".

The article is available here: Pope ignores protests to restore Latin mass

Here are some significant details:

Pope Benedict XVI plans to bring back the celebration of mass in Latin, overriding a rare show of protest from senior cardinals.

With a papal decree said to be imminent, Catholic publishers in Rome are preparing new editions of the Latin missal.

They have sent proofs to Vatican authorities for approval, the Rome newspaper La Repubblica has reported.

Vatican sources said Benedict, who is fluent in Latin, is considering the publication of a papal motu proprio (literally, on his own initiative), which does not require the approval of church bodies.

This would enable Benedict to ignore opposition from several cardinals.

The decree would declare the Latin, or Tridentine, mass an "extraordinary universal rite", and the vernacular mass, with which most Catholics are familiar, an "ordinary universal rite".

We'll see what happens.

Any thoughts?

Matt C. Abbott: On Sean Hannity's Heresy & Helping Catholic Journalist, Robert Kumpel

Catholic journalist, Matt C. Abbott has published an article covering two important stories.

The article is available here: Pro-life priest criticizes Sean Hannity; Catholic journalist in legal trouble

The first story deals with Human Life International President, Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer, STL, who recently (and justifiably) criticized Catholic political commentator, Sean Hannity for his heretical stance on matters of faith and morals.

Fr. Euteneuer's recent article may be viewed here: Sean Hannity's Gospel

After writing his article, Fr. Euteneuer recently appeared on Hannity & Colmes to discuss his article with Sean Hannity and the video of his appearance is worth watching. Until it is up on YouTube, you can watch it by clicking here: Judgment Day: Priest claims Hannity's stance on birth control makes him a bad Catholic

Sean Hannity did not come off well in this segment, and I am embarrassed for him. It is shameful that he resorted to bashing the Church over the sex abuse scandals in order to help his own image.

It should also be mentioned that Sean Hannity has repeatedly stated on his programs that he opposes legal abortion, "except in cases of rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother". In other words, he supports legal abortion in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the pregnant mother.

I have never understood how someone could say they believe abortion is evil, and even murder, but then say that they support that evil form of murder for unborn babies if they are conceived through rape or incest. If it were moral to electively abort unborn babies in cases of rape or incest, it would logically follow that elective abortion is not intrinsically evil, in which case, why oppose abortion at all? Such a position amounts to saying that the value of innocent, unborn, human life is intrinsically bound to the comfort level of a pregnant mother about the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy, which is a fundamentally pro-abortion view.

Supporting legal, elective abortion in cases of rape or incest is an absurd position that seeks to appease the extreme case situations presented as excuses for abortion by abortion advocates. Agreeing with them on that point involves the implication that elective abortion is not intrinsically evil and is even moral in some instances, which inevitably leads to the slippery slope position that elective, legal abortion is a moral option in any circumstance.

Arguments in support of direct, elective abortion to save the life of a mother are equally problematic, because they involve the error of doing something intrinsically evil in order to avoid the loss of something good.

The moral law requires that we do good and avoid evil. We may never do evil, even in order to bring about a good. If we deliberately do evil to bring about some good, even the good of saving a human life, we unwittingly contradict the notion that there is such a thing as moral evil, and we unwittingly deny the golden rule: "And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them." (Luke 6:31) A thief who steals unwittingly denies his own right to private property by his action; a position he would never support if you tried to steal from him. Yet in stealing, he implies that theft is moral, even though he knows in his heart it is not (because he would never want anyone to steal from him). The same is true for any person who deliberately does any evil act, even with the intention of bringing about some good effect. The deliberate commission of evil on the part of any human person (even in matters of venial sin) essentially denies the rectitude of God's eternal law and any belief in any kind of objective moral law (at least in practice). Yet nobody would maintain such a denial, if the same evil were to be done to them.

Cases where one willingly risks his or her life to save others are not the same thing. Although there is never a moral obligation to sacrifice one's life to save others, it is not a deliberate act of evil to do so, and that is the difference. The risk of death (or even the loss of one's own life) is an unintended secondary effect as a result of the primary action taken to save the life of another, whereas an act of direct, elective abortion involves doing an evil act first in order to bring about the good effect of saving a pregnant mother's life.

If Sean Hannity studied Theology in the seminary, as he said (and I don't doubt that he did), he read the wrong books and/or was misled by his instructors, or he deliberately chooses to ignore what he knows to be the teaching of the Church, because if he wants people to believe he is "in the know" he should know better.

You can contact Sean Hannity here: hannity@foxnews.com

Matt Abbott's second story deals with the ongoing legal troubles of Catholic journalist, Robert Kumpel.

I repeat my personal appeal for you to please do all that you can to help Robert Kumpel.

Any thoughts?

Mahonyfest 2007: Footage From The Closing Mass

The video above is also available here: Closing Mass@Religious Education Congress 07

As you can see, Cardinal Mahony continues to ignore directives from the Holy See with respect to suitable Eucharistic vessels.

The video also shows the cardinal referring to the male and female altar servers as auxiliary bishops.

Then they bring on the dancers.

It looks like a different religion.

Any thoughts?

An Anglican Reunion With Rome?

Henry VIII's "reforms" appear to be unravelling rapidly.

The Times Online reports that "radical proposals to reunite Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope are to be published this year".

This is an interesting development. Here's the story: Churches back plan to unite under Pope

According to the Times:

The proposals have been agreed by senior bishops of both churches.

In a 42-page statement prepared by an international commission of both churches, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are urged to explore how they might reunite under the Pope.

The statement, leaked to The Times, is being considered by the Vatican, where Catholic bishops are preparing a formal response.

It comes as the archbishops who lead the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion meet in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in an attempt to avoid schism over gay ordination and other liberal doctrines that have taken hold in parts of the Western Church.

The 36 primates at the gathering will be aware that the Pope, while still a cardinal, sent a message of support to the orthodox wing of the Episcopal Church of the US as it struggled to cope with the fallout after the ordination of the gay bishop Gene Robinson.

Were this week’s discussions to lead to a split between liberals and conservatives, many of the former objections in Rome to a reunion with Anglican conservatives would disappear. Many of those Anglicans who object most strongly to gay ordination also oppose the ordination of women priests.

Rome has already shown itself willing to be flexible on the subject of celibacywhen it received dozens of married priests from the Church of England into the Catholic priesthood after they left over the issue of women’s ordination.

There are about 78 million Anglicans, compared with a billion Roman Catholics, worldwide. In England and Wales, the Catholic Church is set to overtake Anglicanism as the predominant Christian denomination for the first time since the Reformation, thanks to immigration from Catholic countries.

The religion reporting from the Times has not impressed me in the past, so I take this story with a grain of salt, but it is a hopeful sign.

Can any readers shed more light on the situation?

All In Fun

The video above is also available here: 1/2 Hour News Hour Promotional Clip

Ann Coulter On Potential Republican Presidential Candidates

In this O'Reilly Factor clip, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly discuss four potential Republican presidential candidates.

It should be noted that Ann once again makes clear that abortion is a pivotal issue of concern for her and that she will not support a Republican candidate who supports legal, elective abortion. Good for her!

Senator John McCain was described by Bill O'Reilly as pro-life, although Ann seems to suspect he is not a strong defender of life. Here is more information about that line of thought: How John McCain Threatens The Pro-Life Cause

Rudy Giuliani was described by both Bill and Ann as pro-abortion. This makes him unsupportable as a candidate, both from a moral standpoint, and an electability standpoint, because, as Ann points out, more people care about the abortion issue than about Republicans, and if the Republicans put forward a pro-abortion candidate, they will lose those votes (including her own).

Mitt Romney was described by both Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter as pro-life, however, there have been concerns raised about his stance on that issue. See here for more details: Romney's Abortion Flip-Flop

Newt Gingrich was discussed, but he has not announced his candidacy and was not considered a serious contender. Here is some information on Newt's stance on moral issues: Exclusive “American View” Interview: Newt Gingrich On Abortion, Homosexuality, Biblical Government; Rejects “Narrow” View Of Our Founders

Sam Brownback was left off the list, the only official candidate I know to be 100% pro-life.

Before anyone makes remarks about Ann Coulter, especially tired remarks about her being "hateful", Ann Coulter is not meant to be the focus of the post, but rather the political positions of the potential Republican candidates for President of the United States.

Ann Coulter isn't perfect, and I don't intend that anyone should think she is, but I agree with her on important issues, like abortion. I don't agree with her on certain other issues, like bombing civilian targets.

However, I don't find her as upsetting as some people do. I think she uses humor to make a point, and I often (but not always) find her amusing.

I am not putting her forward as the ultimate moral authority in the universe, and I am not terribly interested in criticism of her, as I am aware of the criticisms and have a differing perspective.

Ultimately, though, the post isn't about Ann, so the comments don't need to be either.

Any (other) thoughts?

One Of Many Gifts To America From The Clinton Administration: Former Surgeon General, Dr. Joycelyn Elders

The video above is also available here: The Word - Joycelyn Elders and Masturbation

"The Word" - A short video from 1994 by Rich N Famous making light of Joycelyn Elders' comment that "masturbation should be taught in schools", which caused dozens of TV talking heads to reluctantly utter the word "masturbation" while discussing the issue. (Apologies for the poor video quality.)

On a more serious note (and with better video quality) let's let Dr. Joycelyn Elders speak freely:

The video above is also available here: Joycelyn Elders

Minnie Joycelyn Elders (born August 13, 1933) was the United States Surgeon General during the Clinton administration from September 8, 1993 to December 31, 1994, most famous for her outspokenness on sensitive issues of public health.

From Wikipedia:

In 1987 Governor Bill Clinton appointed Elders Director of the Arkansas Department of Health. Her accomplishments in this position included a tenfold increase in the number of early childhood screenings annually and almost a doubling of the immunization rate for two-year-olds in Arkansas. In 1992, she was elected President of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers.

In 1993 after Clinton was elected president, he appointed her United States Surgeon General, making her the first African American, and the second woman, to hold the position (Antonia Novello was the first). As surgeon general, Elders quickly established a reputation for controversy. Like many of the surgeons general before her, she was an outspoken advocate of a variety of health-related causes, some of which were quite unconventional. She argued for an exploration of the possibility of drug legalization, and she was a strong backer of President Clinton's plan for national health care.

In 1994, she was invited to speak at a United Nations conference on AIDS. She was asked whether it would be appropriate to promote masturbation as a means of preventing young people from engaging in riskier forms of sexual activity, and she replied, "I think that it is part of human sexuality, and perhaps it should be taught."

Other quotes from Dr. Joycelyn Elders:

"We must stop this love affair with the fetus." - 1993

"The number of Down’s Syndrome infants in Washington state in 1976 was 64% lower than it would have been without legal abortion."

"As long as I was in Washington I never met anybody that I thought was good enough, who knew enough or who loved enough to make sexual decisions for anybody else."

As you can see, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, albeit a bit of a punch-line, is a staunch advocate for ideas that run contrary to Christian morality. Secular progressive liberals believe in the things she's saying. They just wish she wouldn't embarrass them by letting people know it, because it hurts their cause.

Hillary Clinton's presidential run is definitely going to involve an amusing walk down memory lane.

Any thoughts?

Alexandra Pelosi Examines The Friends Of God

The video above is also available here: "Friends of God" [Trailer]

The video above is also available here: Refuting Evolution (from HBO's Friends of God)

I have not seen this documentary in its entirety, but the impression I get from these clips is that Friends of God: A Road Trip With Alexandra Pelosi examines Evangelical Christians as something alien and other, and genuinely seeks to understand them, but not without encouraging a measure of condescension among viewers with different perspectives than the perspectives of Evangelical Christians.

I do think the film appears to reinforce some of the fears secular progressive people have about Evangelical Christians. The Ted Haggard footage is particularly embarrassing – especially this creepy, cringe-inducing scene where Haggard talks about the sex lives of Evangelicals and begins asking two men inappropriate questions about their own sex lives: Ted Haggard on the sex lives of Evangelicals

Too much information.

Now, on to the Pelosi clip examining Evangelicals and evolution:

I have been sorting out my own take on evolution from a Catholic perspective over the past few years, especially since reading Ann Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

I don't have a problem, per se, with believing in evolution, so long as God is admitted to be the first cause of everything, and is understood to be intimately involved – even now – in His creation (as opposed to a deistic view of a God who set things in motion, but is no longer directly involved in the day to day existence of created beings).

Since reading Godless, I can see that there are more problems with evolutionary theory than I had realized, but I can still see the possibility that God created the universe through evolution.

I did find it interesting when Coulter explained the relationship between Darwin's theories and Marxism, Naziism, and the eugenics movement of Margaret Sanger. I hadn't connected those dots before.

This article delves into that: Coulter exposes Darwinism

Here's a quote:

As Coulter puts it, "From Marx to Hitler, the men responsible for the greatest mass murders of the twentieth century were avid Darwinists." As evidence of this, one can cite Richard Weikart's book From Darwin to Hitler, wherein the author traces the evidence that eugenics organizations in Germany at the dawn of the 20th Century touted "scientific" theories of the laws of evolution.

As Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, "Everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested it for the first time. It was then repeated again and again, and the practice of it spread over a widening area, until finally it passed into the subconscious of every member of the species, where it manifested itself as 'instinct.'"

Coulter writes, "It is impossible to understand Hitler's monstrous views apart from his belief in natural selection applied to races. He believed Darwin's theory of natural selection showed that 'science' justified extermination of the Jews."

And here, the author gets closer to home and contemporary society when she notes that many abusers, politically correct advocates, sexual profligates, racists, and "animal rights nuts" eventually gravitate to Darwinism.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, believed in Darwinism. In fact, she cited Darwinism to support her crusades for birth control. She was also a eugenicist. Call it pure happenstance, if you will, but Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the U.S., and — coincidence or not — about 36% of aborted babies in this country are black. Blacks make up only 12-14% of the United States population.

Hitler's own opposition to abortion, as Weikart explains, was not based on the tenets of Judeo-Christian morality, "but rather was a complete repudiation of them." As Coulter writes, "He didn't oppose abortion because he believed in the human soul. In fact, and needless to say, he didn't oppose abortion for everyone, only 'Aryans.'"

Coulter also explained that the reason progressive people are obsessive about notions of human equality and demand universal adherence to such notions, even where there is a difficult fit or evidence to the contrary: without religious morality, there is nothing to prevent others from implementing genocidal policies akin to those of Hitler and the various communist regimes of the 20th century. I hadn't connected those dots either.

I still haven't decided what to believe with respect to evolution, but my faith isn't troubled by evolutionary theory, and my belief in the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture isn't threatened by evolutionary theory or ideas that the universe is billions of years old.

Some of my Protestant friends seem to be very threatened by these ideas, because they see them to be a stepping stone to questioning everything in Sacred Scripture, and they seem puzzled by my willingness to believe that theistic evolution, including belief in a universe that is many billions of years old, can be squared with belief in Sacred Scripture as inspired by the Holy Spirit and inerrant.

On reflection, I can see where the insecurity creeps in for Protestants. Scripture is their authority, and they view evolutionary theory and non-literal interpretations of Sacred Scripture as chipping away at that authority. They have no Magisterium. They reject most notions of Christian tradition as being a source of authority. When someone starts to tell them that there are literary elements used in Sacred Scripture that are meant to convey truths, but not meant to be understood as literally, historically accurate, they begin to wonder where it all ends. They see it as opening Pandora's box.

Catholics have the security of the Magisterium, so theistic evolution creates no authority crisis for a Catholic.

All of that being said, I was impressed by Ann Coulter's articulation of the problems with evolutionary theory, and I think that song about Job and Behemoth the sauropod kind of rocked!

Any thoughts?

Mitt Romney: A Change Of Heart?

The video above can also be viewed here: Gov. Romney on '94 Debate w/ Kennedy

As for whether or not Mormonism should be an issue for Catholics - it should.  The Mormon religion allows for abortion is certain circumstances and Mormons can petition their bishop for permission to have an abortion.

There are other significant issues with respect to the Mormon religion, such as its Masonic elements and the potential for the leadership of the Mormon religion to influence Mr. Romney that can be considered legitimate concerns for Catholic voters.  The fact that Mormonism has an inherently anti-Catholic element to it does not help matters, and neither does the Mormon doctrine that dark skin is the mark of Cain (a doctrine that was used as justification for barring dark skinned people from ordained ministry in the Mormon religion until the late 1970's).  The Book of Mormon frequently refers to white and delightsome skin, while making clear that dark skinned people are accursed because they are the descendents of Cain.  Mormon doctrine holds that dark skinned people fought "less valiantly" in the "spirit war" between Jesus and the devil and their respective followers in the spiritual pre-existence all human beings are believed to have had before life on earth.  (All of which is completely contrary to Catholic doctrine.)  The whole white and delightsome/dark-skinned accursed doctrine is inherently racist and essentially teaches the inferiority of persons of color.  That is not acceptable.

Those who are unfamiliar with the Mormon Church should read Inside Mormonism, by Isaiah Bennett.  The book is excellent.  I have read it myself.  Mr. Bennet was a Catholic priest who left the priesthood and became a Mormon.  He was married in the Mormon religion and was deemed worthy to worship at the temple.  He and his wife became extremely disillusioned with Mormonism when they realized that Mormonsism is not a solidly pro-life religion.  He is fair and respectful in his treatment of the religion and there is no hint of bitterness in what he writes.  If you have questions about Mormonism, this is probably the best book around on the subject.

Here are some details about the book from Amazon.com:

"Inside Mormonism: What Mormons Really Believe" offers an unprecedented look at the Mormon religion. It is the first book offering an in-depth and objective critique of Mormonism from a Catholic perspective. Isaiah Bennett conducts a thorough, frank, and charitable investigation of Mormonism, its history and the doctrines its leaders don't want told to the public. He highlights the religion's contradictory doctrines and explains how it "packages" itself to appear Christian.

Mormonism wants to be perceived as an open, friendly, and genuinely Christian faith, but "Inside Mormonism" demonstrates Mormonism's erroneous teachings, its attacks on faithful Christians, and the strategies Mormon missionaries use to pull Catholics out of the Church.

After reading "Inside Mormonism," you will be armed with the knowledge needed to defend your faith against Mormon claims and to help family and friends see through the arguments of the missionaries. You'll discover the doctrines that the Mormon hierarchy doesn't want you to know:

Mormons believe that God the Father once was a mortal man living on another planet and that he now has a wife in heaven.

Mormons believe that if they are faithful to their religion, they too can become gods equal to God the Father.

Mormons hold that Jesus and Lucifer are "spirit brothers."

Mormons believe that dark skin is a curse.

Mormons portray their religion as pro-family, yet they permit abortion in many circumstances.

Mormons redefine words to mask non-Christian, polytheistic doctrines as Christian.

From the Publisher
Comprehensive, but easily read volume covering the history, beliefs, and practices of Mormons. In many instances this non-fiction account reads like an adventure story, as the colorful history of Joseph Smith and those who followed him is told. An eye-opening journey inside the Mormon Church, filled to the brim with documentation from Scripture, authoritative Mormon attributions, and other historical sources.

Any thoughts?

Mitt Romney On Abortion, "Gay" Rights & Other Issues: How Much Can He Have Changed?

This video can also be seen here: The Real Romney?

Mitt Romney lost me at Mormonism, but if that isn't enough to convince people that he shouldn't be the Republican candidate, this video might.

The video also captures Ted Kennedy in all his cafeteria Catholic glory. At his particular judgment, he will have to face God knowing he, a Catholic, who should know better, stood before millions of people on camera, and repeatedly stumped for the right for women to kill their unborn babies through legal, elective abortion. He ought to fear God's judgment over that issue even more than he should fear God's judgment on his role in what happened to Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick.

Any thoughts?

New Video: More Liturgical Abuses In The Diocese Of Orange

You can also see the above video here: Included: Teen from the band gives Homily at Catholic Mass

This video of several Masses on different occasions includes Bishop Tod Brown altering the words of the Mass, a lay youth minister giving a reflection as part of the homily, a strange reflection on beauty by a visiting priest, parishioners entering the sanctuary around the altar during the Liturgy of the Eucharist (and remaining in a standing position throughout the consecration), the routine alteration of the words of the Agnus Dei through song, Bishop Brown in the sanctuary with a costumed person in native garb, and Bishop Brown consecrating the elements of the Holy Eucharist in woven baskets and glass pitchers.

Remember that this is the same Bishop Tod Brown who was quite particular about demanding that one parish within his diocese - St. Mary's by the Sea - follow his own new liturgical norm and remain standing during the Agnus Dei, even allowing the parish administrator to send letters inviting Catholics who continued to kneel to leave the parish and the Diocese of Orange, tell those who continued to kneel that doing so was a mortal sin, and dismiss them from all parish volunteer positions and parish organizations with which they were affiliated.

This is also the same diocese that brought you the videos linked below:

The Halloween Mass including the Mass with an extraordinary minister of the Holy Eucharist dressed as a devil, as well as The Barney Blessing.

Any thoughts?

Nancy Pelosi Takes The Reins

Nancy Pelosi will, as of today, be third in the line of succession to the President of the United States.

That, in and of itself, is a very depressing thought.

Here's the story: Pelosi ready to make history as new speaker

As you may know, Ms. Pelosi is a Cafeteria Catholic.

However, she has, in at least one interview, referred to herself as a Conservative Catholic.  I learned that from The Curt Jester through this post: Conservative Catholic

Don't get too excited, though.  In that interview she expressed her support for "choice" (abortion) and endorsed the ordination of women.

You can read Ms. Pelosi's interview with the National Catholic Reporter, the newspaper of record for dissenting Catholics, here: Transcript of interview of Rep. Nancy Pelosi

Amy Welborn posted details of Nancy Pelosi's pro-abortion voting record here: Nancy-Palooza

Incidentally, the comments in Amy's post were the first I was aware that she isn't fond of the GOP.  In fact, she explicitly posted within the comments of the thread: "we despise the GOP around here, pretty much".  When some people objected to being lumped in that category, she  clarified, "Sorry, all. The "we" despising the GOP referred to me alone."

I never realized.  It made me a little sad.  I wanted Amy to like me.  I never had anything against her.

Anyway...

Unfortuantely, the Democratic party has many, many "conservative" Catholics like Nancy Pelosi both in congress, and in prominent positions within the media.

However, it must also be acknowledged that the Republican Party is not without its Cafeteria Catholics.  Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenegger spring to mind.

Why do so many Catholic politicians on both sides of the aisle abandon their faith?  It's kind of embarassing.

Any thoughts?

A Local Fox News Segment On The Rising Interest In The Mass Of The 1962 Missal

The segment may be viewed here: More Catholic Churches Return To Latin Mass

From the description on the FOX News site:

Catholic churches around the country are seeing a return to a more traditional way of prayer. Traditional Latin masses, which were banned for almost two decades, are now becoming a popular alternative to English masses for younger families.

Thanks to Shaw Tribe at The New Liturgical Movement for pointing out the segment.

This entry by Shawn Tribe is also worth reading: A call for a shift away from a vocabulary of polemic and inaccuracy

What are your thoughts?

A Sacrilegious Clown Mass In The Oakland Diocese

If you have trouble viewing the video above, you can also view it here: A Sacrilegious Clown Mass In The Oakland Diocese

An introductory extract from The Instruction Concerning Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery (Inaestimabile Donum)

Prepared by the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship Approved and Confirmed by His Holiness Pope John Paul II April 17, 1980

This Sacred Congregation notes with great joy the many positive results of the liturgical reform: a more active and conscious participation by the faithful in the liturgical mysteries, doctrinal and catechetical enrichment through the use of the vernacular, and the wealth of readings from the Bible, a growth in the community sense of liturgical life, and successful efforts to close the gap between life and worship, between Liturgical piety and personal piety, and between Liturgy and popular piety.

But these encouraging and positive aspects cannot suppress concern at the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic world: the confusion of roles, especially regarding the priestly ministry and the role of the laity (indiscriminate shared recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer, homilies given by lay people, lay people distributing Communion while the priests refrain from doing so); an increasing loss of the sense of the sacred (abandonment of liturgical vestments, the Eucharist celebrated outside church without real need, lack of reverence and respect for the Blessed Sacrament, etc.); misunderstanding of the ecclesial character of the Liturgy (the use of private texts, the proliferation of unapproved Eucharistic Prayers, the manipulation of the liturgical texts for social and political ends) . In these cases we are face to face with a real falsification of the Catholic Liturgy: "One who offers worship to God on the Church's behalf in a way contrary to that which is laid down by the Church with God-given authority and which is customary in the Church is guilty of falsification."[7]

None of these things can bring good results. The consequences are--and cannot fail to be--the impairing of the unity of Faith and worship in the Church, doctrinal uncertainty, scandal and bewilderment among the People of God, and the near inevitability of violent reactions.

It's time for an end to the wave of liturgical experimentation and liturgical abuse that has overtaken the Catholic Church in many parts of the world. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass needs to be celebrated with reverence and dignity.

Clown Masses and Halloween Masses (with Barney Blessings) demonstrate an appalling ignorance as to what really and truly takes place during Holy Mass: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

One would like to believe Masses like these are isolated incidents, but there is evidence that abuses like these (and other reprobated liturgical abuses) are quite common in the United States and abroad.

How long is such nonsense to be tolerated? How many warnings from the Holy See reprobating such actions need to be written, promulgated, and ignored, before more concrete action is taken? The abuses have to stop.

One way to stop them is to expose them. That's where YouTube and Catholic Blogs can be of invaluable assistance.

I intend to post footage of liturgical abuses in various dioceses throughout the United States here on Roman Catholic Blog. I do it not to spread scandal, but rather to assist in putting an end to such abuses. Whatever else may be said about exposing these things, it cannot be denied that the ones exposed do not like it. Which makes one wonder how they think what they are doing is so wonderful if they are angered by actions that expose what they are doing?

Bottom line: the darkness still hates the light.

Feel free to utilize YouTube to upload videos of legitimate liturgical abuse or heretical teachings. E-mail me the link to the video on YouTube at thomistic@romancatholicblog.com. If your video is appropriate, I will post it here.

Other videos:

Catholic Halloween Mass

Halloween Mass

Halloween Mass 3 - The Barney Blessing

Another Halloween Mass

The 2006 Los Angeles archdiocesan Religious Education Congress, Closing Liturgy

Vocations Crisis

Any thoughts?

Pro-Life, Catholic Candidate, Senator Sam Brownback, Looks At Presidential Run In 2008

Senator Sam Brownback, of Kansas, has announced that he will consider running for president in 2008.

I first noticed Senator Brownback during the Samuel Alito confirmation hearings and I was very impressed with him.

Here's the story: Catholic candidate looks at presidential run in 2008

Here is some background on Senator Brownback from the article:

Brownback, who has made a name for himself in conservative circles since he was elected a U.S. Senator in 1996, has been a fervent supporter of “family values” and creating a “culture of life” in the United States.

In the letter announcing his candidacy consideration, Brownback said he is running in order to “spread hope and ideas.”

The senator also noted a few of his platform concepts. In addition to mentioning life issues and the protection of marriage, Brownback notes some problems he would address as president. “The federal government wastes and spends too much. We lack compassionate yet practical programs to help the poor here and around the world. We need energy independence and alternative, clean-burning, domestic-grown fuels. The scourge of cancer has killed too many and must be stopped. We need term limits for judges and members of Congress like we have for the President. We need a flat tax instead of the dreadful, incomprehensible tax code we now have,” Brownback says, adding, “and we need humility.”

Here is Senator Brownback's webpage: Sam Brownback, United States Senator

What do you think?

Another Halloween Mass

The photos in the slideshow linked below were taken at St. Kenneth "Catholic Community" parish in Plymouth Township, Michigan has posted images from their 2006 Halloween Mass.

You can view the slideshow here: Halloween Mass 2006, by St. Kenneth Catholic Community

Why do people think it is appropriate to dress in witches' hats and paint their children in zombie make-up for Mass?

What is missing in the catechesis in parishes where the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is seen as little more than an excuse to "gather" and have fun as a "community"?

I will say this: My first impression was that Fr. Fred Bailey's Halloween Mass in Orange County, California was worse, primarily because of the costumes worn by the priest and the people in the sanctuary, but the St. Kenneth "Catholic Community" isn't faring much better.

Gerald Augustinus wrote about the second Mass here: Another Halloween Mass, this time in Michigan

Amy Welborn did an excellent analysis of this second Halloween Mass here: Boo

Amy caught something I hadn't:

At first I thought the priest's costume was some sort of medieval clerical robe tossed over his vestments. The musicians seemed to be doing a Renaissance thing, so it seemed logical. But in reading the comments at Gerald's and studying the photos, I saw...no. The red cape and hood are a devil costume! Which, apparently, during the homily, the priest turns inside out to reveal a white cape - an angel. It appears from the one slide of the rest of Mass, he ditches the costume for the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Well.

I suppose a priest dressed as a devil at Mass may top even Fr. Fred. Who thought that was possible?

Any thoughts?

Satan's Thanksgiving

Here's what Satan doesn't want you to see:

Write to:

His Eminence
Cardinal Francis Arinze
Prefect
Cong. for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
00120 Vatican City State

Here are some things you can write about: Open Letter to Tod Brown, Bishop of Orange

If you need more reasons, see also:

The Sacrilegeous Halloween Mass: A Cartoon Commentary

Devils Distributing Communion: Bishop Tod Brown's Kind Of Diversity

The Blasphemous Halloween Masses: More Footage

Orange Diocese Halloween Mass: Listen To The Music

Now On YouTube: Bishop Tod Brown Refuses To Give Holy Communion To A Kneeling Woman

Bishop Tod Brown: More Defiance In Orange County?

Why Does Bishop Tod Brown Support Rod Stephens?

Bishop Brown To Orange County Catholics: Let's Get Spiritual!

Bishop Brown's Empire Strikes Back: No Tridentine For You!

St. Mary's by the Sea Liturgical Reeducation Camp

Cartoon: The Diocese of Orange Implements New USCCB Decision On Communion For Pro-Abortion Politicians

A Ban on Kneeling? Some Catholics Won’t Stand for It

Bishop Tod Brown Bans Kneeling At Traditional Times During The Liturgy

Roman Catholic Blog: Humor Archives

More Liturgical Video: Arrogant, Anti-Christian Atheist, Richard Dawkins, Questions Fallen Evangelical Minister, Ted Haggard

This video clip is interesting on many levels. It was made before Ted Haggard was publicly humiliated by a methamphetamine-dealing, homosexual prostitute, and provides something of a window into who he was before his fall. (I had never heard of him before the scandal.)

The video can also be seen here: Richard Dawkins Questions Evangelical Pastor

It's interesting to listen to Haggard try to defend Christianity. Sometimes he's right on the money. Dawkins certainly doesn't come off well, even though this video is from his perspective.

Now let's examine the liturgy presented in the video clip:

I was struck by how the liturgies represented in this video resemble the direction Catholic liturgies all over Orange County (and Los Angeles, and San Diego, and probably elsewhere) have been heading for the past few decades.

I believe that more progressive bishops in the United States see Protestant/Evangelical mega-churches like this one as a model for Catholicism (with the possible exception of the tendency towards conservatism and biblically-based Christian moral doctrine). Note how Haggard stresses having things "in the round". Note how the music resembles music played at Catholic liturgies.

If you don't believe that Catholic liturgists who think themselves cutting edge are cribbing from the Evangelicals, check out this video: The 2006 Los Angeles archdiocesan Religious Education Congress, Closing Liturgy

(You may need to download the required media players to view the clips.)

As a side note on poor Ted Haggard (please pray for him), apparently, Mr. Haggard harbored some anti-Catholic prejudices, as is evidenced in this story from Catholic News Service: Catholic filmmaker finds suspicion about her faith among evangelicals

Here's the relevant section of the article:

"My one disturbing encounter was at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs (Colo.) with Pastor Ted Haggard," head of the National Association of Evangelicals, who is "the senior minister of the church," Ewing said.

"I was in the service, and we had three cameras rolling, and there were 3,000 people in the church, and my cameraman was on the stage shooting him, and Pastor Ted started teasing the cameraman: 'Where are you from? England? Do you go to church?'" she recounted.

When the cameraman told Rev. Haggard that he goes to church when he's in England, the minister said, "So you're in the Church of England." The cameraman replied, "No, I'm Catholic," according to Ewing. "Pastor Ted turned to the congregation – and I have this on tape – in a very mocking tone, he said, 'Oh, we l-o-o-o-ve the Catholics, don't we?' and people started laughing.

"Why would he whack another religion?" she asked. "There was a disparaging way about how everyone reacted. As the leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, he is a representative of 30 million people and a religiously respected person in the movement. For him to joke like that, I was pretty alarmed."

Sad.

Any thoughts?

Orange Diocese Halloween Mass: Listen To The Music

A more detailed look at the initial video of the Catholic Halloween Mass (which shows only the Saturday vigil Mass) shows more ad libbing from the priest, other liturgical abuses, and gives a good sense of the banal music that is played at Masses throughout Orange County (throughout the Mass). Most Orange County Catholic parishes may claim they don't dress up for Halloween at Mass, but when it comes to dreadful music like this, most Orange County parishes provide exactly the same type of ugly, droning, mind-numbing, soul-sucking, quasi-rock and roll music at Mass.

This footage can also be viewed on YouTube: Catholic Halloween Mass

Devils Distributing Communion: Bishop Tod Brown's Kind Of Diversity

The Cafeteria Is Closed had a post about the Halloween Mass at the "Catholic-Christian community" of Corpus Christi in Aliso Viejo, in the Diocese of Orange, California.

Here is the advertisement for this year's Mass (taken from his parish bulletin):

Let your inner child come out to play… For those newly arrived at Corpus Christi since last October 31st you may not be aware of our most wonderful celebration of Halloween on the weekend PRIOR to October 31st…which this year will be NEXT weekend, October 28-29. In anticipation of All Hallows Eve parishioners are invited to come to Mass in costume (yep…that means adults AND kids). In addition, families/individuals are invited to carve a family Fred-O’Lantern (related to Jack but a lot more fun) for placement around the altar. Special treats (and very few tricks) will be available to the young and young at heart at all the Masses. In addition, let the wondering and guessing begin as to who or what FKB (Fred K. Bailey, the pastor) will become at the end of Mass; final clue: I love you, you love me. While some church communities scare their members with silly talk of Halloween being devil worship and other such nonsense, we Catholic-Christians understand that All Hallows Eve is the EVE of All Saint’s Day, an autumn celebration that honors our spiritual heritage. Secure in our knowledge of Jesus’ resurrection we are able to poke fun at the things that used to scare us and see them for the empty threats they always were. Our God is not threatened by carved vegetables; rather, he delights in a parish family that comes together in worship, fun and frolic.

Here are pictures from some of this year's Masses:

Update: Here's a visual take (from Andrzej) on the "It's the Great Pumpkin, Bishop Brown" Masses in Aliso Viejo with Satan giving out Communion:

Here is the latest flyer from Restore The Sacred, a group of Catholics working for the restoration of the sacred in Orange County:

Front and Back (You will need Microsoft Word to open the documents.)

Here is an article about Fr. Fred Bailey where he mentions a previous Halloween Mass: It's Just A Pumpkin, Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission, January 2001

As many of you may know, Bishop Tod Brown has forbidden kneeling after the Agnus Dei in his diocese, and withdrawn permission for the continued celebration of the Tridentine Mass at St. Mary's by the Sea parish (in Huntington Beach, CA), in the name of unity, arbitrarily forcing the faithful to travel an extra 28 miles across the county to attend an indult Tridentine Mass.

This decision was made by Bishop Brown despite hundreds of letters and 1,200 signatures on a petition, and to the present day, the Tridentine Mass remains forbidden at St. Mary's by the Sea, forcing devotees to drive to the overcrowded Serra Chapel at the Mission San Juan Capistrano, where it is still officially sanctioned. In the Diocese of Orange, there is now one remaining indult Mass location, serving a diocese of over 1,044,191 Catholics in a county of 2,760,948 people. The Tridentine Mass at that location is only offered at 8:00 A.M. on Sundays and non-transferred Holy Days, is attended by 300+ persons every Sunday, and 450+ on the first Sunday of every month. The Serra Chapel is designed to hold approximately 120 persons. Many of these people drive from as far as 50 miles away. The Mass is at 8:00 AM, and they should plan to arrive up to 45 minutes early if they plan to get a seat!

Parishioners at St. Mary's by the Sea who have continued to kneel after the Agnus Dei as most Catholics throughout this country have done for over thirty years (and continue to do to this day) were harassed, accused of serious disobedience, and even mortal sin for continuing to kneel. People were banished from the parish council and barred from parish service and/or membership in parish centered groups like the Legion of Mary. The director of the altar boys was fired. Altar boys were dismissed. Elderly women were brought to tears by Fr. Martin Tran, who insisted upon singling out these kneeling parishioners and pressuring them to violate their consciences refusing to accept any compromise over Bishop Brown's policy of strictly regulating posture at Mass (a policy that, truth be told, was intent on breaking St. Mary's by the Sea parish of the last vestiges of traditional Catholicism that remained since Bishop Brown began "updating" the parish after the retirement of Rev. Daniel Johnson). Eventually, Fr. Tran sent a letter affecting something near sixty Catholics in the parish; inviting them to leave the parish, and the Diocese of Orange.

All of Fr. Martin Tran's actions were done with Bishop Brown's full support and approbation, because Bishop Brown is extremely serious about respecting the sacred liturgy. He will allow Catholics to hear painful words that accuse them of mortal sin, and even banish Catholics from their parish and their diocese, if they do not respect the sacred liturgy and adhere to the liturgical laws of the Church and/or the norms he sets himself for his own diocese.

Many parishioners at St. Mary's by the Sea felt that Bishop Brown's crackdown on St. Mary's by the Sea appeared to evidence a calloused disregard, and even a singular loathing, for the traditional Catholics at St. Mary's by the Sea, since there have been no such crackdowns on other liturgical aberrations in the diocese that are far more egregious than kneeling in adoration of the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament after the Agnus Dei.

Case in point: Fr. Fred Bailey's Annual Halloween Masses.

Disrespectful is too mild a word for a Mass with extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist and choir members who are dressed as demons and an altar surrounded by carved pumpkins named in honor of the pastor's ego.

Given Bishop Brown's professed desire to ensure that the sacred liturgy is not profaned by anomalies that are outside of liturgical law, it will be interesting to see how he handles the situation with Fr. Fred Bailey, a pastor Bishop Brown installed, whose eccentricities are well known throughout the diocese.

Will Fr. Fred be allowed to continue these practices? Will the extraordinary ministers and choir members be publicly accused of disobedience and serious, mortal sin, and barred from parish service? Or are Bishop Brown's selective liturgical enforcements only aimed at stamping out traditional piety, as many have suspected all along?

If you are unfamiliar with Bishop Brown, you might want to read the Open Letter to Tod Brown, Bishop of Orange, Vocations director under fire in California, and red through the archives of Roman Catholic Blog.

Any thoughts?

Poll: Nearly Half Of Americans Uncertain God Exists

According to a recent poll, nearly half of Americans aren't sure if God exists.

Here's the story: Nearly half of Americans uncertain God exists: poll

I have to say that I'm not surprised. It certainly explains how John Kerry got nearly half of the votes in the last presidential election. (Bush got 51% of the popular vote. 62,040,606 people voted for George Bush. John Kerry got 48%. 59,028,109 people voted for John Kerry. Ralph Nader got 1% of the vote from 411,304 people.)

Recently, there was a poll that claimed that the culture war is overblown and that most Americans are not polarized. The mainstream media has long been telling us that most of America is "moderate" and that although demagogues on the left and the right attempt to drive wedges and cause rifts, we are all reasonable enough to be in the middle, bland and boring, sitting right on the fence, and not overly concerned about hot-button issues. (This is the same mainstream media that has been telling us (with a straight face) that their political coverage is completely objective and without any particular bias.)

Yet there is a culture war, in America, and woven throughout the tapestry of human history. There is a clash between the forces of good and evil. St. Augustine wrote about it in his famous work: The City of God.

It is very sad that something very near half of America is confused about whether or not God exists. Perhaps reflection on the five ways to demonstrate the existence of God will be of some benefit: Whether God exists?

Any thoughts?

Bishop Tod Brown: More Defiance In Orange County?

The Cafeteria is Closed is reporting that Orange County, California bishop, Tod David Brown, has permitted his chancery to issue this directive from Lesa Truxaw, the Orange diocese's director of worship, to all priests and deacons in the Diocese of Orange, letting them know they should ignore the new directives from Rome with respect to the purification of vessels (rescinding the controversial, temporary permission for lay persons to purify the sacred vessels after the distribution of Holy Communion) until the U.S. Bishops meet to discuss the "new" norms. The need for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to discuss the implementation of the Holy See's new directive is somewhat mystifying. Some analysis of Bishop Brown's latest chess move is in order.

Here is Gerald Augustinus' blog entry: Diocese of Orange Memo on purification

Note: Gerald erroneously (but with the best of intentions) reported that the Diocese of Orange is: "in lockstep with Mahony's Los Angeles (it's part of the archdiocese)". That is not entirely accurate. While it is true that Bishop Brown's policies are often in lockstep with those of Cardinal Mahony, the Diocese of Orange is a separate entity. According to the history section of the official Diocese of Orange website: "On June 18, 1976, His Holiness Pope Paul VI established the Diocese of Orange, encompassing 782 square mile [sic] along 42 miles of Southern California coastline." On June 16th of that year, Cardinal Timothy Manning installed Los Angeles Auxiliary Bishop William Johnson as the first Bishop of Orange at Holy Family Cathedral.

The Diocese of Orange website continues, saying:

The Most Reverend William R. Johnson was installed as First Bishop of Orange and served his flock during the formative years of the diocese until his death on July 28, 1986. Auxiliary Bishop John T. Steinbock served as Apostolic Administrator until February 24, 1987, when the Most Reverend Norman F. McFarland was installed Second Bishop of Orange. On September 3, 1998 Bishop Tod D. Brown was installed as Third Bishop of Orange, upon the retirement of Bishop McFarland.

When the Diocese was first established, there were 42 parishes and 179 Priests serving 330,000 Orange County Catholics. Today, 25 years later, there are 55 diocesan parishes and 289 Priests serving 1,044,191 Catholics in the county of 2,760,948 people.

Although the territory of the Diocese of Orange was once part of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, it is now a separate diocese. Bishop Tod Brown is not an auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of Los Angels (nor were his predecessors). The office of Bishop of Orange is a separate see, independent of the authority of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

However, it might be helpful to give some perspective on the history of Cardinal Mahony's efforts to influence policy in the Diocese of Orange.

As Jeff Nihill reported in the July 20, 2000 article, in the national Catholic weekly newspaper, The Wanderer, titled, "Tod Brown, Bishop of Orange: A Two Year Retrospective":

Bishop Tod D. Brown was installed as the third Bishop of Orange in the Diocese's Mother Church, Holy Family Cathedral, on September 3, 1998. When he arrived, little was known locally about Brown, other than that he was a friend and former classmate of Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony and had served for nine years as Bishop of Boise, Idaho. This relationship led many conservatives to fear that Brown was a staunch liberal, and, after nearly two years at the helm in Orange, this has proven true. Since his arrival, Brown has moved the diocesan administration steadily leftward, and has turned Orange into little more than an extension of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, responsive to the directives of Cardinal Mahony.

Norman McFarland, Brown's predecessor, served as Bishop of Orange for 11 years. He was a competent, able administrator, widely known for his financial acumen. Although his manner could be gruff and demanding, and one could easily disagree with his decisions, he was genuine and straightforward, and widely respected among the clergy and laity.

McFarland was solidly orthodox and well educated in the Catholic faith. However, McFarland's orthodoxy was frequently not shared by members of his chancery staff, nor by many of his priests and parish staffs. While he did ordain some pious, orthodox young men to the priesthood, he did little to change the far-left makeup of the religious education establishment in the diocese, intervening only in cases of the most overt heresy.

Unfortunately, such intervention was often ineffective. Should an abuse arise, McFarland might contact the offending party privately, and order it to cease. The person would ordinarily be left in his position of authority; someone who had no intention, despite assurances to the contrary, of being orthodox. Furthermore, McFarland would make no public statement to reassure the scandalized "layman in the pew" that the abuse had been corrected.

To the delight of many in Orange, McFarland and Cardinal Mahony had long shared a mutual dislike for each other, not only on philosophical grounds, but also because of the Cardinal's repeated attempts to meddle in the affairs of Orange.

With the appointment of Brown, however, such meddling has become commonplace. Brown is very much a different kind of bishop from McFarland. He is very much more the politician, quite pleasant and charming socially, and reserved and diplomatic in his public statements. However, in nearly two years as Bishop of Orange, he has yet to demonstrate, either in his writing or preaching, any depth of understanding of the Catholic faith.

Later in the article, Mr. Nihill reported:

In yet another indication of his obsequious relationship with Cardinal Mahony, Bishop Brown closed the Diocese of Orange's 24-year-old newspaper, the Bulletin, and is replacing it with a publication of the Tidings Corporation, which produces the L.A. Archdiocese's weekly newspaper, The Tidings. Mahony ordered the move to improve The Tidings' sagging circulation, which has today fallen to around 30,000 from a one-time high of 150,000.

Due in part to its promotion of a liberal political agenda with ideas contrary to the Catholic faith, the publication has alienated many faithful priests and lay persons. Additionally, the watered-down Catholicism of the L.A. Archdiocese has made the faith irrelevant to the lives of many Catholics, who, therefore, have no interest in the Archdiocesan newspaper. Considering the enormous sums of money the Archdiocese has spent to keep its newspaper afloat, its continuing rejection by rank-and-file Catholics has vexed Mahony and The Tidings' abrasive editor, recently appointed the Archdiocese's Director of Communications, Tod Tamberg.

So, you see, Cardinal Mahony has no authority over Bishop Tod Brown, they are simply the best of friends, and cut from the same theological cloth.

As for Lesa Truxaw's directive to the ordained ministers (priests and deacons) of the Diocese of Orange, several things come to mind:

First, why is a lay woman the Orange diocese's director of worship? Wouldn't a priest be more appropriate for such a position? Apparently, such is not the case in Tod Brown's diocese.

As Mr. Nihill noted in his article:

Brown also shares the political correctness typically found among members of the mainstream media and college professors. For example, his first high profile diocesan appointment was that of Sister Katherine Gray--a Sister of St. Joseph of Orange, the diocese's largest religious community which is rife with liberalism and rapidly dying out--as chancellor, a role traditionally held by a priest (female chancellors are the "in thing" among liberal bishops).

Second, why does the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops need to meet in order to implement a directive from the Holy See rescinding the indult allowing lay persons to purify the sacred vessels after the distribution of Holy Communion? (For background details, see: Extraordinary ministers of Eucharist barred from purifying vessels)

National espiscopal conferences are not part of the intrinsic structure of the Church, but rather an added (and frequently unnecessary) layer of bureaucracy. (For the official position of the Church on national bishops' conferences, see: Apostolos Suos) Sometimes, it can be helpful to have all of the bishops in a given country work towards uniformity within that country, but in reality, each diocese answers directly to the Holy See (and its various offices) and needn't look to or follow the directives of any intermediary body.

To put things plainly, adopting a "wait and see what the U.S. bishops say" policy seems, at best, a ploy to stall for time and end run the clear and expressed wishes of the Holy Father on this matter. At worst, it would seem to imply that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (or at least some of its members) want to create the impression that they, and not the Holy See, are the final authority on liturgical matters in the United States.

This April 16, 1999, John Allen article on (then) Cardinal Ratzinger from the ultra-liberal, dissent friendly, National Catholic Reporter reveals the tension between national bishops' conferences and the Holy See: The Vatican’s enforcer

Others have spotted politics in the evolution of Ratzinger’s own theological positions. In 1965, for example, Ratzinger in a Concilium article called national episcopal conferences “the best means of concrete plurality in unity,” arguing that they’re rooted in the ancient church. As prefect, however, Ratzinger has insisted that episcopal conferences have no such status; a bishop can teach in his own diocese and all the bishops together can teach in a council, but there’s nothing in between. That was the thrust of the recent papal document Apostolos Suos.

Why the shift? NCR’s late Vatican affairs correspondent Peter Hebblethwaite suggested in 1986 that it’s an instance of Ratzinger using theology ideologically. It’s much easier to cow an individual bishop than a strong conference, so by reducing the power of conferences, Ratzinger boosts his own.

Finally, you may notice that Lesa Truxaw emphasizes that reception of Holy Communion "under both signs is a "more complete" sign of the sacrament's meaning." This is accurate, but misleading. Here is what Catholic News Service (the official news organ of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) reported about Cardinal Arinze's clarification in the letter rescinding the controversial, temporary indult allowing lay persons to purify the sacred vessels after the reception of Holy Communion:

Although receiving Communion under both kinds is a "more complete" sign of the sacrament's meaning, Cardinal Arinze said, "Christ is fully present under each of the species."

"Communion under the species of the bread alone, as a consequence, makes it possible to receive all the fruit of eucharistic grace," he added.

Another "legitimate option" when "the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the chalice" is intinction -- the practice of dipping the consecrated host into the consecrated wine -- "with reception on the tongue always and everywhere," the cardinal's letter said.

Not a few people have long viewed the movement to encourage the necessity of receiving Holy Communion under both species for the laity as an attempt to artificially multiply the "need" for extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist in an effort to end run this 1997 directive from the Holy See:
On Certain Questions Regarding The Collaboration Of The Non-Ordained Faithful In The Sacred Ministry Of Priest, which stated (in Article Eight):

§ 1. The canonical discipline concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must be correctly applied so as to avoid generating confusion. The same discipline establishes that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the Bishop, the Priest and the the Deacon.(96) Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are those instituted as acolytes and the faithful so deputed in accordance with Canon 230, § 3.(97)

A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for these situation, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations ad actum vel ad tempus or for a more stable period. In exceptional cases or in un foreseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.(98)

§ 2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion.(99) They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. (100)

This function is supplementary and extraordinary (101) and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law. It is thus useful for the diocesan bishop to issue particular norms concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion which, in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church, should regulate the exercise of this function in his diocese. Such norms should provide, amongst other things, for matters such as the instruction in eucharistic doctrine of those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the meaning of the service they provide, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown for such an august Sacrament and instruction concerning the discipline on admission to Holy Communion.

To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

— extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;

— association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;

— the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass thus arbitrarily extending the concept of "a great number of the faithful".

Incidentally, the same document also said (at the end of Article One):

It is unlawful for the non-ordained faithful to assume titles such as "pastor", "chaplain", "coordinator", " moderator" or other such similar titles which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or Priest.

Be sure to check your parish bulletin to see how well that directive has been implemented. Perhaps we should ask Lesa Truxaw, the director of the Office of Worship, about that?

For more details on Bishop Tod Brown's leadership, be sure to check out the Open Letter to Tod Brown, Bishop of Orange, Vocations director under fire in California, and the archives of Roman Catholic Blog.

Any thoughts?

An End To The Schism?: Mainstream Media Report Speaks Of A Reunion With The Society Of St. Pius X

Reuters is reporting that there may soon be an end to the schism between the Society of St. Pius X and the Universal Church. Here's the story: Catholic schismatics see return to Roman fold soon.

The Reuters article mentions the impending document allowing for the freedom of the Tridentine Mass, but also reports that Rome will be lifting the excommunications against the leadership in the Society of St. Pius X.

Rorate Caeli blog reports:

The most credible French national newspaper, Le Figaro, publishes today an article on the possible removal of the excommunications that followed the events of 1988, which led to the consecration by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (with Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer as co-consecrator) of four bishops for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX/SSPX).

Here's the link: Le Figaro - "Lefebvrists: Rome on the verge of lifting the sanctions"

Rorate Caeli carefully points out that:

The SSPX news agency, DICI, denies some aspects of the article and affirms that it "presents a deeply false view of the state of affairs between Rome and the Fraternity of Saint Pius X". DICI adds the audio link to some remarks Bishop Fellay made last Saturday at Villepreux, near Paris, in which one may realize "in what precise terms Bishop Fellay speaks of a 'withdrawal of the decree of excommunication', which he differentiates well from a removal of the sanctions'."

What do you think?

Pastoral Tod (Brown)

Bishop Tod Brown & The Tridentine Mass

Bishop Tod Brown is in the news again. This time, in the pages of OC Weekly. The article, written by Gustavo Arellano, highlights Bishop Brown's antipathy towards the Tridentine Mass, while taking pot shots at the Tridentine Mass at the same time. Although the pot shots are rooted in ignorance (as well as what might be termed a shallow spiritual outlook) the article still manages to convey the injustice of Bishop Brown's treatment of traditional Catholics in his diocese.

Here's the story: Gloria In Exclusion Deo

Here are some quotes:

This ancient Mass, with its droning Latin and Gregorian chants, is rare today. Help of Christians and Mission San Juan Capistrano are the only Orange County Catholic parishes offering it. And for good reason—it’s a bore.

Traditionalists rave about the mystical qualities of the Tridentine Mass, saying it draws the faithful closer to God. But it’s hard to see how anyone could feel a divine connection in an age when Latin is on life support, aided only by bug-catching scientists, college mottoes and the Vatican. The priest spends most of the Mass with his back to the parishioners, who remain silent save for the occasional cough or sneeze. When the faithful receive the Eucharist, they do so kneeling en masse on a long rail that separates the altar from the pews. Women wear chapel veils; men wear suits or, in the absence of such formality, long-sleeved shirts and dress pants. The priest performs the Mass almost entirely in Latin, still the official language of the Vatican.

The Tridentine Mass is more living museum display than vital Catholicism.

As you can see, the article won't delight traditional Catholics.

Here's the thing: the Tridentine is an acquired taste, especially for Catholics who have never experienced anything other than Mass in the vernacular as it occurs in the average parish. The same can be said of the Ordo Missae in Latin (sometimes called the Novus Ordo, the "New Mass", or Mass of Paul VI). It is much easier to hear Mass in one's own language, because it requires less effort to pay attention. However, this is a double edged sword, because it is also easier to zone in and out mentally during Mass in the vernacular. One can easily go to Mass, week after week, going through the motions, saying all the right responses, but never really reflecting on what is being prayed, or what is really happening.

The same can happen at the Tridentine, especially if you don't follow along in a missal, and when you are used to not following along and doing the "work" of drinking in each word of the Mass (the priest's as well as the responses of the parishioners) it will seem like an odd ritual where the priest has "his back to the people" and the Mass is punctuated with long gaps of awkward silence.

However, if you actually follow the English translation of the Latin in the Missal, not just for the readings and responses, but those prayed silently by the priest (gauging your place by the times he does pray out loud), you will find the Mass a rich, spiritual experience, not just because of the smells and bells, but because of the invitation to enter the interior life of silent conversation with God. The prayers of the Tridentine Mass are not only ancient, but also the language of love. They are powerfully moving, pulling the participant out of the hustle and bustle of the outside world and into the mystical realm of intimate union with God through mental prayer. The prayers are similar, in some ways, to what is heard in the vernacular, but very different in others (most notably in the way the Mass focuses on the Blessed Trinity as the focus of all worship, and the numerous expressions of faith, worship, and affection found throughout the Tridentine – words that were excised from the Novus Ordo in English as redundant), which when repeated interiorly during the Holy Mysteries, with attention and reflection, cannot help but transport the soul beyond the here and now.

Prayer is a difficult exercise. It is the raising of the mind and the heart to God. It requires concentration, and it requires some measure of love, because it is ultimately, essentially a loving conversation with God.

Attachment to sin (whether venial or mortal) make prayer much more difficult, as does a life devoid of silence and reflection. A good prayer life requires devotion. Spiritual reading is also an important part of prayer. Some have compared spiritual reading as oil for the lamp of prayer. It is fuel for the fire, helping the soul to love God by inspiring that love through reflection on Truth and on the life of Christ (and even the lives of the saints, who reflect Him in so many ways).

It would be hard to work for a newspaper like the OC Weekly (which contains articles that are sometimes sullied by profanity, and advertisements and personal ads that would be considered contrary to the Catholic faith by even the most nominal Catholics [or even Bishop Brown]) and not find the Tridentine Mass jarring. So it isn't surprising that someone who writes for that paper would consider the Tridentine Mass a "bore". Such ignorance can be chalked up to ignorance and the understanding that appreciation for the mystical life, mental prayer, and the Holy Mysteries contained within the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are not facilitated by modern life (especially in the secular West).

The same can be said of faithful Catholics who express a distaste for Latin and traditional Catholicism. They often forget that the things they describe as being so boring and irrelevant nourished the faith of thousands of canonized saints. It is easier to forget such things when comparing the Mass to modern entertainments like video games, iPods, computers, and cable television. Heavy doses of the mind numbing (frequently immoral) entertainments that are so common in modern life can easily lead Catholics to believe that a ritual as silent and antiquated as the Tridentine Mass is out of step and will only drive away young people. (Especially when those young people are allowed and even encouraged to get their fill of worldly entertainments to the point that anything that doesn't involve fast editing and lots of music will bore them to tears.)

However, the Mass can never compete with such entertainments, and the gimmicks of loud, droning music, skits, and hip talk often used at youth Masses are pretty pathetic by comparison. Even the hymns so frequently sung since the 1970's tend to be examples of (as one person said) not making Christianity better, but rather making rock and roll worse. Attempts to make the Mass cool fail miserably and will only be seen as "cool" by people that aren't cool (by anyone's standards).

Holiness is cool, but not in the eyes of the world, and making the Mass more relevant to the world will only result in drawing attention away from the best parts of the Mass by accentuating the least important aspects.

All of that being said, even given the things about the Tridentine Mass the article got wrong, it still managed to convey the fact that there is no good reason for Bishop Brown's antipathy towards the Tridentine Mass and the injustice of how Bishop Brown has further marginalized Traditional Catholics. If the OC Weekly can understand that, why can't Bishop Brown?

What do you think?

The Simpsons: Protestant vs. Catholic Heaven

I was saving this for another day, but The Curt Jester beat me to it.

Vent with Michelle Malkin: Muzzling the Veggie Tales

Anglican Clergy Say Calling God 'He' Or 'Lord' Encourages Wife-beating

The leadership of the Church of England have warned Anglicans that referring to God as 'He' or 'Lord' may cause domestic abuse.

Here's the story: Outcry as clergy say calling God 'He' or 'Lord' encourages wife-beating

Quote:

"In new guidelines for bishops and priests on such abuse, they blamed "uncritical use of masculine imagery" for encouraging men to behave violently towards women."

Unbelievable. Jesus was a man. Must we deny that as well? Did Jesus encourage wife-beating when He taught us to call God our Father?

What do you think about this?

Bishop Brown's Conscience Clause

In light of Bishop Tod Brown's decision that Catholics may kneel after the Agnus Dei "in conscience" and should not be accused of mortal sin for doing so, but those same Catholics are not fit to serve in parish ministries, a reader has contributed a new Bishop Brown cartoon. Due to technical difficulties, I couldn't get the image to load wihout distortions, so I have linked it instead. The link is better anyway, because it allows me to use a larger image. Click here for the cartoon: Bishop Brown Cartoon

You can also scroll through our humor archives to see previous Bishop Brown cartoons.

What do you think?

Archbishop Milingo Rejects His Excommunication

Archbishop Milingo has "lovingly" rejected his excommunication.

Here's the story: Archbishop Milingo rejects his excommunication

Who taught this man theology? Does he understand canon law? His choices seem to indicate that he does not.

I wonder how many other bishops out there have a poor grasp of theology?

Bill Clinton: Unglued

Part One:

Part Two:

Here's what Mr. Clinton doesn't admit to FOX News:

Here's some more:

Dutch Catholic Bishop Urges Condom Use

While on a visit to Uganda Bishop Tiny Muskens (you can continue reading when you stop laughing at his name) has defied the Holy See and endorsed the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS, calling condom use "a lesser evil".

Here's the article: Dutch Catholic bishop urges condom use

I have a tiny problem with Bishop Tiny's logic. The use of condoms during sexual intercourse places a barrier between both the unitive and the procreative aspects of the marriage act, even if done to prevent the transmission of disease. Doing so with sufficient reflection and full consent is a mortal sin, and if one dies in the state of mortal sin, one goes to hell for eternity.

Of what benefit is a healthy body in this life if one is to be eternally damned in death? What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and yet suffer the loss of his soul?

Bishop Tiny's statements appear to demonstrate that he has lost his faith and does not believe in the supernatural, or at least doesn't take the supernatural seriously. He is reasoning like a child of the world, not a shepherd of souls spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ. he seems to think that the teachings of Christ, safeguarded by the Church He founded are impractical. His message sounds nothing like the voice of the Lord, and the Lord's sheep know His voice.

Pray for Bishop Tiny. His teaching is a denial of Our Lord. He certainly isn't the first bishop to have denied the Lord. St. Peter did, as well, but St. Peter repented. Judas didn't repent, and Our Lord said it would have been better for Judas to have never been born.

So let's hope Bishop Tiny repents. Let's hope Bishop Tiny hears the voice of the Lord:

So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 10:32-39)

What are your thoughts?

Intimate Confessions Pour Out On Church's Website

Montgomery Clift looks alarmed at what he is hearing in the confessional in this scene from the Alfred Hitchcock classic, I Confess.

(I Confess is a terrific movie, by the way. It's one of my favorites, actually. If you haven't seen it, you're really missing out.)

I imagine Monty would be even more alarmed by the guilt laden confessions ordinary, but tormented people are confiding on a LifeChurch run website called mysecret.tv.

Quote:

Rev. Craig Groeschel, the founder of LifeChurch, which manages mysecret.tv, said the accounts of anguish and guilt that have poured into the Web site have stunned him and affirmed his belief in the need for confession.

Here's the article: Intimate Confessions Pour Out on Church's Web Site

Although it is good that some Protestants recognize the value in confessing sins, the value of confessing them on the internet doesn't seem much different than the value of confessing them on The Jerry Springer show. It seems to me that confessions of this type spread scandal, because they encourage idle curiosity about the sins of others and can lead to impure thoughts and rationalizations about one's own sinfulness in comparison with the sins of others.

No matter how good it may feel to get sins like these of one's chest, there is no sacramental grace involved here, no guarantee of forgiveness from God, and no guarantee of forgiveness or understanding from one's fellow man.

The assurance of forgiveness after sacramental confession is such a blessing! It is one of the best things about being Catholic, because if we confess well, we know we are forgiven, whether we feel it or not. We are also strengthened by the grace of the sacrament to help us not to sin again. We have the comfort of telling another human being our faults and the assurance that the seal of confession will be honored and our fault will not become fodder for public scrutiny or the subject of salacious gossip.

What are your thoughts?

The Beatles & Spirituality

Here is an interesting article on The Beatles and spirituality: Author comments on Beatles' spirituality

It's sad, really. Their "spirituality" was muddled, confused, and ultimately, profoundly flawed.

What are your thoughts?

Desperate Catholics Find "Rent-A-Priests" Online

Unfaithful Catholics across America are reaching out to unfaithful priests who abandoned their vocation to celibacy.

Here's the story: Desperate Catholics find "rent-a-priests" online

Some quotes:

Some are Catholics who see their church as stuck in the past. Others are believers who happen to be divorced, pregnant before marriage or gay. A few just can't find a priest when they need one.

Roman Catholics shunned by the official church are "renting" married priests in times of crisis and celebration.

They turn to http://www.rentapriest.com, a Web site with 2,500 Catholic priests in a national database known as "God's Yellow Pages."

Virtually all the priests in the database have left their official clerical ministries due to the Roman Catholic Church's mandatory celibacy rule, but they continue to conduct weddings, usually for a fee, while performing baptisms, last rites and funerals for free, in keeping with the practice of officially recognized priests.

Instead of Rent-A-Priest, they should call it Rent-A-Sacrilege.

Why bother pretending to practice the Catholic faith if you've already decided that Church disciplines are arbitrary or if your lifestyle choices are contrary to the Catholic faith?

What do you think?

New, "Stricter" Priestly Formation Program Issued For U.S. Catholic Seminaries

A new Program of Priestly Formation has been issued for use in all U.S. Catholic seminaries. It is reportedly "stricter" and designed to address issues dealing with the "human" formation of seminarians. There will also be a greater emphasis on philosophy and theology, an emphasis on priestly celibacy, and guidelines that exclude men who have engaged in sexual misconduct with minors (if it was ever otherwise, I am baffled as to why) or who have same-sex attraction or had same-sex experiences.

All of these things are good, but unfortunately, it seems like too little, too late. Having two years of Theology is terrific if you are studying the right kind of Theology and have orthodox teachers. Weeding out candidates with homosexual tendencies is a wonderful idea, but why wasn't this done in the first place, and how can we be sure that these norms will be properly implemented?

Most importantly, what about cases where the fox is guarding the hen house? What if the very people in charge of implementing these guidelines (including bishops) are of dubious orthodoxy, homosexual, or both? Catholic seminaries throughout the country have been documented to have more than their fair share of agenda-driven, dissenting liberals and homosexuals. There are also a lot of well intentioned, well meaning, but poorly formed men in some formation programs; men with lots of degrees, but a poor understanding of sound, orthodox, Catholic Theology. There are also good men, who know the truth, but remain silent. They are afraid to make waves because they know they are outnumbered or that they will pay dearly for not towing the party line.

If you aren't aware of this, check out: Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic Church, Amchurch Comes Out: The U.S. Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda, and The Rite of Sodomy.

In the past, many priests were poorly schooled in philosophy, theology, Sacred Scripture, traditional spirituality and the like, and instead trained as social workers with little sense of the supernatural. With such poor formation, the liberal ideas of society quickly invade and take root in the mind, which the often well-intentioned priest or seminarian re-interprets as the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hence, rather than discussions of personal sin, eternal salvation or damnation, grace, original sin, etc., the priest is only able to talk about the standard social "sins" of the day: racism, sexism, "homophobia", pollution, etc.

True to the maxim that one cannot give what he does not have, these poorly trained priests may sincerely want to help their parishioners, but are ill equipped to do so. They deliver fluffy homilies devoid of content; offer appallingly bad advice in the confessional, particularly in the area of sexual morality; wonder, sometimes publicly, when the Church is going to give up Her medieval views and become more in touch with the needs of 21st century Catholics; spend countless hours watching television, going to movies and indulging in other entertainments without making an effort to grow in personal holiness, thus being little different than anyone else in society; and are reduced to little more than professional nice guys who have little or no impact on the lives of their parishioners.

Lacking a sense of purpose and mission, and never trained to maintain intense prayer lives, they can fall victim to a variety of personal sins and end up unhappy and disillusioned. While this is certainly not universally true among diocesan priests, for some are self-taught and provide excellent role models despite the corrupted system, it is a widespread problem among the priesthood.

Sadly, many of the people who decide who is admitted to ordination had the type of formation described above, and will therefore not be the best men to implement these guidelines.

Here is an article describing the guidelines: New, stricter Priestly Formation Program issued for U.S. Catholic seminaries

The entire document is available here: USCCB Home Page

Your thoughts?

Meeting Bishop Brown – Catholics May Kneel In Good Conscience

(Click on the image to enlarge it.)

Bishop Tod Brown is shown above at a celebration for "The Close of Christian Unity Week". On Thursday, January 25, 2001, Bishop Brown gathered with leaders from three Christian denominations at Mission Basilica San Juan Capistrano for an ecumenical prayer service, according to the Los Angeles Times. Episcopal bishop J. Jon Bruno, Lutheran bishop Murray Finck, Presbyterian elder Jane Odel, and Bishop Brown, each led a part of the service in which a crowd of 500, including 40 clergymen and clergywomen, participated. The service included a choir composed of the members of five churches and liturgical dancers moving interpretively in the aisles.

The paragraph above is a good example of Bishop Brown's willingness to extend a loving embrace to other Christians.

However, despite hundreds of letters and 1,200 signatures on a petition, the Tridentine Mass remains forbidden at St. Mary's by the Sea, forcing devotees to drive to the overcrowded Serra Chapel at the Mission San Juan Capistrano, where it is still officially sanctioned. In the Diocese of Orange, there is now one remaining indult Mass location, serving a diocese of over 1,044,191 Catholics in a county of 2,760,948 people. The Tridentine Mass at that location is only offered at 8:00 A.M. on Sundays and non-transferred Holy Days, is attended by 300+ persons every Sunday, and 450+ on the first Sunday of every month. The Serra Chapel is designed to hold approximately 120 persons. Many of these people drive from as far as 50 miles away. The Mass is at 8:00 AM, and they should plan to arrive up to 45 minutes early if they plan to get a seat!

Does that sound pastoral? Does it sound like a "wide and generous application of the directives issued by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal of 1962"? Or does it sound like an attempt to discourage attendance at the Tridentine Mass?

These things should be kept in mind while reading this Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission article on the meeting between members of Restore The Sacred and Bishop Tod David Brown.

Here is the article: What Do You Mean by "Wiggle Room"? – St. Mary's by the Sea Parishioners Meet with Bishop Brown

Important to note: At the meeting, Bishop Brown allowed that those who choose to kneel after the Agnus Dei are free to do so, in conscience. He also admit that it was wrong to accuse kneeling parishioners of mortal sin.

For more details on Bishop Brown & the Diocese of Orange, see: Open Letter to Tod Brown, Bishop of Orange

Vocations director under fire in California

St. Mary's by the Sea Liturgical Reeducation Camp

(Click the image to enlarge it.)

A Moment With Mary

Look mercifully on the wretches who beg for your protection!

Most holy Virgin, you pleased the Lord and became His Mother. O Virgin, without blemish in your body and in your soul, in your love and in your grace, look mercifully on the wretches who beg for your mighty protection.

(...)

O blessed Mother, our Queen and Advocate, who crushed the head of the enemy from the first instant of your Conception, receive our prayers and (...) place them before the throne of God, so that we are never caught in the traps that are set for us, but that we may arrive at the port of salvation and, in the midst of so many dangers, the Church and the Christian community may sing again the hymn of deliverance, victory and peace.

~ St Pius X

More On Mel Gibson

Some very good columns have been written about what has happened with Mel Gibson. The most notable I have read so far have been:

Mel Gibson and politics of bigotry By Brent Bozell III

Gibson’s Offense by Joe Sobran

Mel Gibson and Me by Rabbi Daniel Lapin

Additionally, friends of Mel Gibson have stepped forward in his defense:

Pat Boone: Lay off Mel Gibson

CNN: Hollywood friends defend Mel Gibson

Patrick Swayze: Gibson 'a Wonderful Human Being'

Los Angeles Times: They Didn't See This in Gibson's Script

Liberal Christianity Is Paying For Its Sins

This excellent Los Angeles Times article chronicles the demise of mainstream Protestant denominations in the United States and correlates dwindling the membership within these denominations to the liberal reforms of the last forty years that have encouraged Christians (and Catholics) to water down Christian doctrine, ordain women, bless same sex unions, and embrace openly homosexual clergy.

Quote:

The accelerating fragmentation of the strife-torn Episcopal Church USA, in which several parishes and even a few dioceses are opting out of the church, isn't simply about gay bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions or the election of a woman as presiding bishop. It also is about the meltdown of liberal Christianity.

Embraced by the leadership of all the mainline Protestant denominations, as well as large segments of American Catholicism, liberal Christianity has been hailed by its boosters for 40 years as the future of the Christian church.

Instead, as all but a few die-hards now admit, all the mainline churches and movements within churches that have blurred doctrine and softened moral precepts are demographically declining and, in the case of the Episcopal Church, disintegrating.

Here's the rest of the article: Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins

Operation Rescue Leader, Randall Terry, has become Catholic

From Operation Rescue to Operation Convert

Welcome to the family, Randall!

Evangelical Lutheran Church: Just Another Liberal Protestant Sect?

H/T to Carl Olson at Ignatius Insight Scoop for pointing us to this open letter by Lutheran theologian Carl E. Braaten to Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. Braaten calls the Bishop's attention to a laundry list of Lutheran theologians who have left ELCA and converted to Roman Catholicism or become Eastern Orthodox, and states plaintively:

What is happening is nothing less than a tragedy. The ELCA is driving out the best and the brightest theologians of our day, not because it is too Lutheran, but because it has become putatively just another liberal protestant denomination.

Carl provides excellent commentary and analysis, and I second his concluding invitation to Mr. Braaten to cross the Tiber.

Other than that, the ELCA needs a Benedict XVI of its own. Unfortunately, they aren't set up in such a way that is would do them any good if they did have one.