My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (CWNews.com)

The Curt Jester

JIMMY AKIN.ORG

Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by TypePad

Monday, July 21, 2008

Divine Copyright?

Red_shield

I read with great pleasure at the Rorate Coeli blog that the Tridentine Redemptorists have come back to Rome.

See: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/

My late mother, having had wonderful experiences of Redemptorist missions at her local parish as a girl, was particularly devoted to St. Gerard Majella, CSSR.

If you go to to the formerly termed "Transalpine Redemptorist" website, see:

http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2008/07/no-more-servants-but-sons-gal-iv7.html

You will read the following:

"Our new name has been worked out in consultation with the Holy See but, as with all things of this nature, we can only say that the name will be absolutely finalised when the community's statutes are approved. This is normal proceedure.

Our new name, the name which we will use exclusively
from 2 August will be:

SONS OF THE MOST HOLY REDEEMER
Filii Sanctissimi Redemptoris


The siglum will be the Latin initials for 'Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer':

F. SS. R."

Fssr

Until you read farther down:

For those who did not know: The reason we need to change our name is that the Redemptorist Fathers claim exclusive rights to the title: "Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer;" the initials or siglum, "C.SS.R." and the nickname "Redemptorist". ( Our nickname will be chosen later.)

Wow. I didn't realize that religious orders owned, in a legal sense, their orders' names.

Nonetheless - This is a great and good thing, that these men have returned to the fold of Rome, we need them!

Red_saint

St. Gerard Majella - Pray for us.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Ex-Papal Liturgist, Archbishop Piero Marini: Liturgical Renewal "Irreversible"

Christ_healing_the_blind_bartimeus

Christ Healing The Blind Bartimeus by Carl Heinrich Bloch

Here's the link: Vatican official calls liturgical renewal 'irreversible path'

Here's a section of the article:

Liturgical renewal launched by the Second Vatican Council is an "irreversible path" and has not been affected by Pope Benedict XVI's concession on wider use of the Tridentine rite, a Vatican official said.

"The pope's decision has so far not produced any change in the celebrative practice of our ecclesial communities. His gesture was only one of service to unity," Archbishop Piero Marini, who arranged papal liturgies for more than 20 years, said in an interview April 25 in the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano.

"Therefore let's look ahead and let's continue with enthusiasm the path undertaken by the council," he said.

Late last year Archbishop Marini was named to head the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses.

The archbishop remains involved in international liturgical issues, and he said a revision of the committee's statutes is giving it wider authority over eucharistic congresses at the national and regional level, too.

Asked if Pope Benedict's relaxation of restrictions on the use of the pre-Vatican II liturgy signaled a halt to the liturgical reform movement, Archbishop Marini said that was clearly not the pope's aim.

The pope's decree "does not intend to introduce modifications on the current Roman Missal or express a negative judgment on the liturgical reform desired by the council," he said.

He said the decree, which reached out to disaffected Catholics, should be seen as an effort to maintain unity in the church.

Archbishop Marini said his own experience in organizing papal liturgies in more than 100 countries has convinced him that the liturgical reform movement has brought overwhelmingly positive results.

"Everywhere, the liturgy desired by the council was celebrated with lively participation and enthusiasm. Everyone understood the liturgy as proper to the local church and at the same time as an expression of the universal church," he said.

Those liturgies also demonstrated that liturgical reform has solid theological foundations, he said.

"Therefore this is an irreversible path," he said.

Liturgical celebration cannot be separated from the life of the church, the archbishop said, and this means "the church of today, not the church of yesterday or of tomorrow."

At the same time, Archbishop Marini said celebrating the liturgy according to Vatican II is not an easy thing. It takes patience, perseverance and pastoral charity, he said.

One particular issue that has emerged during papal trips, he said, is the fact that some Masses are now attended by hundreds of thousands of the faithful. That raises practical considerations like the number of concelebrants, the distribution of Communion and the level of personal participation, he said.

Pope Benedict has already asked for reconsideration of the role of concelebrants, and Archbishop Marini said it makes sense to look at the question through a serious study and with eventual pastoral-liturgical guidelines.

My thoughts:

We'll see, Archbishop Marini. I suspect you're wrong, though. I certainly think it's wrong to claim that Summorum Pontificum was only issued in an effort to preserve unity and avoid schism. How does the allowance of a right Archbishop Marini clearly views as old and outdated alongside the Ordo Missae promulgated by Pope Paul VI signify a movement that preserves liturgical unity?

It's clear that the archbishop is not in agreement with Pope Benedict XVI with respect to the liturgy. That is probably why he's known as ex-papal liturgist, Archbishop Piero Marini.

Any thoughts?

Monday, April 21, 2008

Report: Pope Benedict XVI Considering Ways To Cleanse The Priesthood

Pope_benedict_xvi_at_st_patricks_ca

Here is the link: Pope Celebrates Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC, Prays for Healing From Church Sex Scandal

Here is the key quote:

A top Vatican official now says the Roman Catholic Church is weighing a further change to clean up the clergy: revising church law so predators could be more easily removed.

"It's possible," said Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican office that reviews abuse claims against priests worldwide.

"There are some things under consideration that I'm not able to say," Levada told reporters Friday, in a meeting at Time magazine's offices. A Vatican spokesman stressed Saturday that no immediate changes are planned.

It is the latest signal during Benedict's first papal visit to America that he is intent on purifying the priesthood as he affirms traditional Catholic practices and teaching.

My thoughts: Working to prevent men with homosexual tendencies from receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders or entering religious life would be a great start!

See also: Bill Maher Makes Excuses For Michael Jackson, But Attacks The Catholic Church [Language Warning]

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Text Of Pope Benedict XVI's Speech To Bishops

Pope_benedict_xvi_speech

Text Of Pope Benedict XVI's Speech To Bishops (after the jump)...

Continue reading "Text Of Pope Benedict XVI's Speech To Bishops" »

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

You Decide: Has "The Cafeteria Is Closed" Blog Reopened The Cafeteria Over The Issue Of Legal Recognition For Homosexual Unions?

Tab_hunter_roddy_mcdowall

Tab Hunter & Roddy McDowall have their cake and sausage, and eat it too.

The Cafeteria is Closed blog has a post which appears to promote the legal recognition of homosexual unions and accept notions about the nature of homosexual activity that have caused some controversy. There are currently over 400 comments on the post.

Here's the link: Homosexuality

After the jump, I will respond to what I read in Gerald's post and in some of the comments. Some of what I say, I will have said before, but I went through and edited things, updated links, and made an effort to tighten what is intended to be a fairly thorough response to the thoughts expressed by Gerald and others commenting at The Cafeteria is Closed blog.

Although the response is lengthy, it isn't just an articulation of my unsupported opinions, hence the links and the length.

One of the reasons error is so widespread in society is that it takes effort to come to know the truth, and refuting errors can involve writing a whole book-length response to properly refute errors that can be rattled off in a few sentences. Many people aren't interested in the work entailed in learning the truth or refuting error, and this is especially so when the errors appeal to them because of an attachment to sin.

I'm not suggesting those things of Gerald, but I do contend that Gerald has sort of gone off the deep end on this issue.

My response to Gerald is after the jump. Please add your comments at the end.

Continue reading "You Decide: Has "The Cafeteria Is Closed" Blog Reopened The Cafeteria Over The Issue Of Legal Recognition For Homosexual Unions?" »

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

The American Life League Welcomes Pope Benedict XVI

Pope_benedict_xvi_4

Here's the link to the advertisement welcoming Pope Benedict XVI: The American Life League Welcomes Pope Benedict XVI

Any thoughts?

Monday, March 10, 2008

San Francisco Archbishop George Niederaurer's Double Standards

Sisters_of_perpetual_indulgence_4

Via Barbara Kralis:

San Francisco Archbishop George Niederaurer is scheduled to give an address about pornography and its effect on human dignity and sexuality during the annual Charles E. Miller, C.M. Symposium March 11 at St. John's Seminary, Camarillo. (Here's the article: Archbishop to address 'Assaulting Human Dignity' in seminary talk.)

However, Niederaurer has done nothing substantive to clean up the homosexual pornography that is occurring right in his own archdiocese and even in one of his own parishes, Most Holy Redeemer, where last October he gave our Lord Jesus in Holy Communion to two sodomite drag queens dressed up as "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence." MHR has a long history of pro-homosexual activism, including having held bingo games where prizes included porn DVDs and sex toys.

During the West Coast Walk for Life in January, president Anthony Gonzales of the St. Joseph's Men Society asked the archbishop if he would excommunicate the twisted Sisters or at least put an interdict on them. Archbishop Niederaurer gave this non-response: "I'm planning on walking for life." (To watch the video, go to St. Joseph's Men's Society and scroll about 1/3 of the way down the page to "The Refusal of Archbishop Niederauer.")

So, it is truly ironic that Archbishop Niederaurer would give a talk to seminarians on pornography, while at the same time he does nothing to address the pornography in his own diocese.

My thoughts:

The Archdiocese has known about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence for a long time and knew of their involvement at Most Holy Redeemer Parish prior to Niederauer's decision to give the Blessed Sacraments to drag queens. Most Holy Redeemer Parish is known for its homosexual-friendly atmosphere and involvement in homosexual activism.

Here's evidence:

The "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" Lead "Revival Bingo" at Most Holy Redeemer Parish Hall

Background on homosexual-friendly Catholic Parish, Most Holy Redeemer (MHR), in the Castro District of San Francisco, where the San Francisco Sacrilege occurred.

Most Holy Redeemer Parish had a booth at the Folsom Street Fair and has participated in "gay pride" events for many years.

Here's evidence:

Catholic ‘Drag Nun Bingo’ Parish, Most Holy Redeemer, Participates in San Francisco Pride Parade 2007

Life and Death in a “Gay” Parish - The Story of Most Holy Redeemer Church, San Francisco

MHR & How It Got That Way

Holy Redeemer Parish Marches in "Gay Parade"

I must warn you that parts of this linked YouTube video detailing Most Holy Redeemer Parish involvement in a "pride" parade are obscene. (Note: Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, makes an appearance): "Gay Pride" in the Archdiocese of San Francisco

Where Is Archbishop Niederauer?: BBC To Broadcast "Gay" Mass From San Francisco

Scandalous San Francisco 'Gay Pride' Pastor and Chancellor Back in Saddle after "Leave"

Archbishop Niederauer is a progressive, "gay-friendly", Catholic bishop. Here's evidence:

Scandal & Sacrilege In San Francisco [Warning: Graphic]

New San Francisco Archbishop Thinks Gay Propaganda Film Brokeback Mountain is "Very Powerful"

"San Fran. Archbishop "very happy" about plan regarding homosexual adoptions"

"San Francisco Archbishop Niederauer Says He Doesn't Know Nancy Pelosi Stand on Abortion"

Homosexual Activists Cheer Appointment of New San Francisco Archbishop

Current San Francisco Archbishop Niederauer Defended Molesting Priest

Any thoughts?

Monday, March 03, 2008

Fr. Z: Oblates Of The Virgin Mary Superiors Come Out Against Pope Benedict XVI & Summorum Pontificum

Outside_photo_st_peter_chanel

St. Peter Chanel Catholic Church

12001 East 214 Street Hawaiian Gardens, CA 90716

Voice: 1 (562) 924-7591 Fax: 1 (562) 402-9411

St. Peter Chanel Catholic Church in Hawaiian Gardens, California has rescinded their support for the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, in what can reasonably seen as defiance of Summorum Pontificum.

Here's the story: OMV and SJ superiors line up against Pope Benedict and Summorum Pontificum.

Quote:

At Saint Peter Chanel in Hawaiian Gardens, CA, USA, there was a older form low Mass for a few months. One day as Mass was ending the pastor announced that the head of his order had told OMV priests to stop saying the older form of Mass because providing the TLM was an "apostolate" that the OMV does not embrace. He also said that the 170 person average Sunday attendance was insufficient to justify the Mass there. Some parishioners expressed their dismay, but the pastor was adamant.

I wrote about this back on 13 February.

Some parishioners began writing to the superiors of the OMVs.

Here is an example of a response:

Dear Ms. _, I want to thank you for your email and the concerns you shared regarding the Tridentine Mass at St. Peter Chanel. I can understand how the news you have heard regarding the celebration of the extraordinary form is difficult. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify what has happened and to reaffirm our uncompromised fidelity to the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church.

The decision to no longer offer the extraordinary form was made by our Major Superior in Rome in consultation with his Council. He arrived at this decision after careful study of the Motu Proprio in light of our charism and the needs for the people we serve. Each Religious Community and Institute of Consecrated Life, under the direction of its Major Superior has the freedom to determine which apostolic works they wish to undertake according to their charism and spirit. This freedom is described in Article 3 of the "Motu Proprio" and is given to the Major Superior by the Holy Father.

The decision of our Major Superior for our religious community does not mean we not recognize the beauty and the validity of this extraordinary form permitted by our Holy Father, or the real need it provides for some of the Catholic faithful. It means simply this is not an apostolic work that our Major Superior wants us to undertake as a Congregation.

As stated in Article 7, the bishop has the responsibility to provide this form to the Catholic Faithful in his diocese to meet their spiritual needs. We have encouraged those who feel called to worship in the extraordinary form to pursue the options available by the diocese. For example, this extraordinary form continues to be offered in the diocese, and we have encouraged the faithful to attend this Mass if they are feel called to this particular form of worship.

We are grateful to God for the opportunity to offer the beauty of the liturgy to thousands each week. Like the extraordinary form, these liturgies are reverent, prayerful and spiritually nourishing. There have been and continue to be great miracles that take place at St. Peter Chanel parish. Whether it is the approximate 800 people who attend the four daily Masses, the 8,000 people who attend the 12 Sunday Masses or the many hours of confessions on a daily basis, God is working in and through Oblate priests and the parishioners in a powerful way. Our commitment to this spiritual work of mercy, along with the many good works at St. Peter Chanel we pray will only continue.

I thank you again for taking the time to write me. I hope I have helped to clarify your concerns.

With my prayers and warmest regards in Christ,

Fr. Bill Brown, OMV
Provincial
Oblates of the Virgin Mary

Fr. Z correctly concludes:

In a nutshell, must we conclude that the OMV’s have determined that they are somehow separate from the rest of the Church in regard to use of the fullness of the Roman Rite? That’s is what it looks like. They don’t have the "charism", a slippery term, to provide for the spiritual needs of people through the TLM. They have an apostolate that excludes such people.

Okay. That’s their choice. Too bad.

Apparently the parishioners are still writing and working to resolve this situation and the Provincial has been communicating with the Rector Major, Fr Patrice Veraquin, OMV.

I'm at a loss. What could these priests and superiors be thinking? The Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite is not only a treasure of the Church, it is also a right of the faithful. If the Oblates are claiming their charism is not to serve all Catholic parishioners in their parishes, then it would follow that they are essentially claiming that serving in parishes isn't their charism.

Any thoughts?

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Is The USCCB Investing Your Donations In Pornography?

The_taking_of_christ_2

The Taking of Christ by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio

Here's the link to the New Oxford Review story, authored by Thomas Strobhar: Holy Porn!

Here's the text:

Thomas Strobhar, President of Thomas Strobhar Financial in Dayton, Ohio, has over 25 years of investment experience. He is the founder of Citizen Action Now (www.citizenactionnow.com), an advocacy group that combats the imposition of the homosexual agenda, and Chairman of Life Decisions International (www.fightpp.org), an advocacy group dedicated to challenging the Culture of Death and promoting chastity. He is also the founder of Pro Vita Advisors (www.provitaadvisors.com), a nonprofit organization dedicated to exposing and confronting the business aspects of abortion. His shareholder resolutions against contributions to Planned Parenthood have affected corporate policies at AT&T, American Express, General Mills, Target Stores, Berkshire Hathaway, and others.

Five hundred years ago the Catholic Church was laid low for selling indulgences. Six years ago the Church was rocked by news of bishops covering up the sexual misdeeds of their fellow priests. Today hundreds of Catholic groups -- dioceses, archdioceses, and religious orders -- help fund their work through the sale of sex. Not sex per se, but the graphic depiction of sex found in hardcore pornography. Yes, the seamiest and steamiest hardcore porn films are brought into our living rooms and hotel rooms everyday through the investments of a veritable who's who of Catholic religious groups.

What do the bishops have to say about this? Not much. Until a few years ago, they had nothing to say. The investment guidelines of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB), first formulated in 1991, ran over 15 pages and treated esoteric subjects, like affordable housing, in some detail. But there was not a single word about pornography, one of the most likely precipitators of personal sin. Apparently, the bishops hadn't thought of it or did not think it was important. Maybe they hadn't heard many confessions lately. In 2003 that changed. They altered their guidelines and included the problem of pornography. The result: the bishops gave their blessing to investing in porn-related companies as long as the company's revenues from porn were not "significant." The USCCB's express policy, as stated in its "Socially Responsible Investment Guidelines: Principles for USCCB Investments" (Nov. 12, 2003), is: "The USCCB will not invest in a company that derives a significant portion of its revenues" from pornography.

According to one bishop, the original language offered by a committee commissioned to study the problem of porn called only for divestment if a company "has a majority investment or participation" in pornographic material. This was seen as too lenient by some bishops, who managed to have the language changed to "a significant portion of its revenues." The "majority investment or participation" language reflected the then-current practice of the Christian Brothers Investment Services (CBIS), whose specific policy alluded to a 50 percent or more interest in porn-related material.

The Christian Brothers are one of the largest investors of Catholic institutional money in the world. They invest billions of dollars for over 1,000 Catholic "dioceses, religious institutes, educational institutions and health care organizations." Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland, Ore., is a trustee of CBIS, and Archbishop Emeritus James Keleher of Kansas City is a former trustee. CBIS helped formulate the bishops' original investment guidelines in 1991 and boast on their website that "CBIS was honored to be the only investment firm asked to advise the USCCB in the development of the updated guidelines" in 2003. CBIS, which touts its "disciplined approach to socially responsible investing" as a way for "Catholic institutions to invest in a manner that is consistent with their mission and with the teachings of the Catholic Church," is presumably in the best position to know what "significant" means to the bishops in practice.

According to John Wilson, Director of Socially Responsible Investing for CBIS, "There are in fact relatively few such [porn-related] companies, if defined the way we define it: companies whose primary business is the production of adult content. If defined more broadly to include any producer or distributor of adult content, you could include many more companies, including most media and cable companies." Whether the wording is "primary" or "significant," CBIS apparently has no misgivings about investing Catholic funds in a wide array of companies that distribute pornography, or more politely, "adult content." As long as the company's "primary" business is not porn, CBIS deems it acceptable. As Wilson realizes, this means that "relatively few" companies are avoided. The result is that almost every company responsible for bringing pornography into our lives is fair game for investment purposes. Considering the close relationship the bishops have long had with CBIS, and the fact that many entrust diocesan funds to CBIS to this day, it appears that many bishops, too, have little problem investing in porn.

Whereas the bishops consulted the Christian Brothers on how to deal with porn, it appears neither of them looked to see what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about it: Pornography "does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public) since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others" (#2354). The Catechism doesn't talk about "primary" or "significant"; it makes it quite clear that any profit from pornography is "illicit." According to the Catechism, pornography is "a grave offense," and "civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic material" (#2354). Indeed, it is a bizarre situation when the Catechism calls on civil authorities to "prevent the distribution of pornographic material" when the bishops and countless Catholic religious groups knowingly own shares in companies that distribute pornography every day.

Investing is sometimes seen as a passive activity, but as a shareholder one is promoting and profiting from whatever that company does. If a company sells porn, the investor is encouraging and profiting from sin. On this point, the Catechism says, "we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so" (#1868). The bishops clearly aren't doing much to hinder sin when they own companies whose profits are dependent on porn sales. Keep in mind, porn sales, with their low production costs, are exceedingly profitable. To these companies, their profits from porn are most "significant."

Actual companies recently owned by the Christian Brothers, as reported on their website, include: Cablevision Systems, Charter Communications, Com cast, DirecTV Group, Echostar, News Corp, Rogers Communications, Time Warner, and Viacom -- all of which entice the public with pornography via either cable or satellite television. In addition, they own Choice Hotels, Hilton Hotels, Host Hotels & Resorts, Las Vegas Sands, and Marriott International -- which all profit by offering in-room porn movies to their guests.

The Christian Brothers, on behalf of their Catholic clients, also own Lodgenet, which is one of the largest providers of in-room porn to the hotel industry, serving 1.8 million rooms. Some of the movies offered by Lodgenet include Girls Who Love Girls, Filthy Young Innocents, and AC/DC Sex. A complete list of almost 100 titles can be seen at www.truthaboutlodgenet.com. According to CBS News (Sept. 5, 2004), it is estimated that in-room porn films are purchased by "a whopping 50% of their [big chain hotels'] guests, accounting for nearly 70 percent of their in-room profits." It is arguable, even by the incredibly lax standards of the bishops and the Christian Brothers, that Lodgenet's porn business is its most "significant," if not its "primary," business.

While ownership in companies that profit from graphic images of sex provokes little outrage among the USCCB and CBIS, it is interesting to note a shareholder resolution brought last year by the Maryknoll Sisters and the Province of St. Joseph of the Capuchin Order. The resolution asked Viacom to divest itself of Paramount Pictures, because a number of its films showed people smoking! The religious groups argued that images of smoking would influence the behavior of younger viewers. Of course, a good number of Paramount movies have shown people in sexual situations, but this was not mentioned in the resolution. Catholic religious orders have offered scores, if not hundreds, of shareholder resolutions dealing with tobacco, but it is difficult to find even one in which the issue of porn is addressed.

Smoking is apparently a most serious taboo among Catholic investors. The Christian Brothers do a great job of keeping the bishops' money out of tobacco companies, even though the bishops' guidelines say nothing about the subject. As regards smoking, Catholic groups apparently can't be sensitive enough. Perhaps the bishops and other Catholic groups would be more upset if the porn films they help distribute showed people smoking after sex.

The clerical sex scandal of six years ago counted over 13,000 victims strung over a few decades. Its financial cost is well into the billions of dollars. It is not hard to imagine 13,000 people per day, or even per hour, buying a porn film through their cable television company or in their hotel room. In all, there could easily be tens of millions of people induced to sin through the financial assistance of many dioceses, archdioceses, and multiple Catholic religious groups. Tens of millions of sins would presumably qualify as "significant."

In the clerical sex scandal, what disgusted people the most was not the individual sinner but the fact that these sinners were returned, with the bishops' approval and after consulting with professionals, to unsuspecting parishes where they often sinned again and again. All of us are subject to our passions, but it is the cooperation with and enabling of sin that produces the most outrage. Owning porn-related companies is just another example of the bishops' complicity in this regard.

There are thousands of other companies that would make suitable investments. Only a small percentage of public corporations are involved in porn sales. If choice A is found wanting for any reason, simply go to choice B. For religious groups, one would think that some level of prudence would apply.

Investing is not the only arena in which the bishops have bumped up against the porn demon and lost. In a story related to this writer by a senior staff member of the USCCB and confirmed by Msgr. Frank Maniscalso, also of the USCCB, the bishops tried to block porn filters for computers destined for Catholic school libraries and classrooms. Legislative proposals in 1998 would have mandated porn filters on all computers bought with federal funds or with tax revenue. The bishops joined the ultra-liberal American Library Association in attempting to defeat the mandatory filters. The bishops argued they would put in policies against porn access in schools, and wanted filters to be optional. The bishops also thought porn filters might cost too much. (Their actual cost is negligible.) In practice, filters prevent abuse from occurring. A policy is easily broken and difficult to enforce -- e.g., consider the effectiveness of a "No Talking" policy in most school libraries. Eventually, the legislation passed with mandatory filters, thus saving the bishops from their own poor judgment.

The bishops and other Catholic groups invest in porn-related companies when there is little question about porn's redeeming value. Speaking of redemption, there is no attempt to avoid companies that may not be pornographic in the classic sense but make light of human sexuality or promote lifestyles inimical to traditional Christian belief. For example, mainstream television networks bring us situation comedies laden with vulgarities and sexual innuendo. Shock-jock radio announcers, like Howard Stern and Don Imus, belittle people and, according to a recent study by The New York Times (May 6, 2007), specialize in "sexually explicit banter, particularly descriptions of anal and oral sex." How these things promote the redemptive mission of the crucified Son of God would be most difficult to understand. Yet the companies that bring us these shows are clearly acceptable investments for the bishops. The Christian Brothers' investments in this area include General Electric, which brought us the aforementioned Don Imus (until he was fired for uttering a racial slur on the air) and a host of questionable movies and television shows. They also own Clear Channel and Emmis Communications, which collectively own over 1,000 radio stations. Some of the most offensive "humor" legally allowed is served up by these stations every day. So much for CBIS's "disciplined approach to socially responsible investing."

This picture is brought into bold relief when one considers the great art the Catholic Church inspired and helped fund over the centuries. But in America today, the bishops finance culture-destroying "entertainment" of the lowest order.

If there is a bright side for the bishops, it is this: Unlike the clerical sex scandal, no one will sue them because of their investments in porn-related companies. Unfortunately, it is also the reason that they are likely to do nothing. The fact that millions of souls may be gravely compromised or lost for eternity is not legally actionable -- in this world.

Any thoughts?

Bishop Fulton Sheen On True & False Compassion

False compassion and human respect are, in my opinion, a large part of the reason for much of the corruption in the world and the Church.

Apathy, lukewarm faith, attachment to sin, and obstinacy in sin are not helped in any way by false compassion.

Sin is like a cancer. Imagine an oncologist having a compassionate attitude toward the cancer killing his patients! Although those patients might suffer less in the beginning because they wouldn't be forced to endure chemotherapy, more likely than not, the patients treated by such a physician would die much sooner, whereas if such patients were treated, many would very likely beat their cancer and live.

Sin is like poison. It's not compassionate to sit back and let someone drink poison.

The key is speaking the truth in love. Tone is very important when dealing with creatures as fragile, fickle, and prone to pride as human beings, who due to concupiscence, as a result of Original sin, are inclined to take the path of least resistance and follow their lower passions rather than right reason.

Although it is true that fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, it's very important to make sure that in sharing the truth, we do not become an obstacle to its acceptance. Who wants to sign up with a group filled with members that appear bitter, angry and unpleasant? Who would join a group that sought to enlist members by insulting and condemning people?

Quoting St. Thomas Aquinas:

Fear is chiefly required as being the foundation, so to speak, of the perfection of the other gifts, for "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Psalm 110:10; Sirach 1:16), and not as though it were more excellent than the others. Because, in the order of generation, man departs from evil on account of fear (Proverbs 16:16), before doing good works, and which result from the other gifts.
In order to judge aright, the speculative reason is perfected by "wisdom"; the practical reason by "knowledge." The appetitive power, in matters touching a man's relations to another, is perfected by "piety"; in matters touching himself, it is perfected by "fortitude" against the fear of dangers; and against inordinate lust for pleasures, by "fear," according to Proverbs 15:27: "By the fear of the Lord every one declineth from evil," and Psalm 118:120: "Pierce Thou my flesh with Thy fear: for I am afraid of Thy judgments." Hence it is clear that these gifts extend to all those things to which the virtues, both intellectual and moral, extend.

Catholics must learn their faith so as to be prepared with the questions and challenges to their Faith they will hear from those who do not believe and from those who cling to sinful lifestyles. Catholics must share their faith with others in a way that doesn't compromise the truth in any way, but still invites and attracts.

Christ did not compromise, but He remains attractive to sincere people, whether or not they have come to believe in Him.

Many non-believers will readily admit that Jesus is appealing – they claim that it's His followers that trouble them. This may be true, or it may be a excuse. Our job is to make sure we're part of the solution, and not part of the problem.

Many people will still, sadly, reject the truth, even when it is presented charitably, accurately, and truthfully. People rejected Christ during His public life, and they will reject His followers now, but we can't comfort ourselves with the false security that every rejection of the Christian method is due only to the sinfulness of those with whom we share the Holy Gospel.

Christians must walk a fine line. They must speak the truth, without compromise, but in love, with a desire to lead souls to Christ, and a prudent understanding about what may needlessly drive people away.

Any thoughts?

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic