Roman Catholic Blog

Bishop Tod Brown's Last Laugh?

 

Turning 75 this November, and that being the mandatory retirement age for a Roman Catholic Bishop - Bishop Brown doesn't have time to build his new multi-million dollar {Protestant Barn} Cathedral in Costa Mesa, perhaps Bishop Brown can just buy an existing Protestant Barn?

 

From the L.A. Times blog...

"O.C. diocese to explore purchase of Crystal Cathedral site

July 6, 2011 | 11:23 am

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange has expressed interest in the Crystal Cathedral property, a spokesman said Wednesday.

"We really have no sufficient space or a facility to accommodate the 1.2 million Catholics in Orange County," said Steve Bohannon, a diocese spokesman.

That coupled with Bishop Tod D. Brown's concern that the Garden Grove property could become anything else but a place of worship is why he has authorized a law firm and other advisers to look into the purchase of the property, Bohannon said. 

So far, two parties have offered to purchase the Crystal Cathedral property for $46 million. The first is Greenlaw Partners, an Orange County-based real estate developer, which would build apartments on the property. Chapman University filed an offer Tuesday, and would like to use the property as a health sciences center. Both offers allow the Crystal Cathedral Ministry to lease back core buildings, including the landmark cathedral.

The Crystal Cathedral filed for bankruptcy in October, citing more than $50 million in debt. Bohannon said no formal offers have been made, and the diocese is only looking at options regarding the property."

SEE: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/oc-archdiocese-to-explore-purchase-of-crystal-cathedral-site.html

The Heretic Luther & the Council of Trent

 

 

A couple of posts back I received some detailed questions that I have just had time to respond to. They appear to be directed at my assertion that:

 

“There is no more systematic refutation of the vast errors of Lutheranism than the Canons & Decrees of the Council of Trent.”

 

 

I thought I’d take them in order, so here you go….

 

“I would be most appreciative of any summary you could provide of the vast errors of Lutheranism from "Canons & Decrees of the Council of Trent" or if you could point me to a good introductory manuscript on the subject.”

Posted by: JT | Monday, September 28, 2009 at 12:27 PM

 

Answer: JT – it would seem that even a cursory reading of the “Canons & Decrees of the Council of Trent” would point to their position as refuting Lutheranism, and additional Protestant heresies that arose after him.

 

First, the Council of Trent was itself interested in getting the Lutheran heretics into the Council!

 

“SAFE-CONDUCT GRANTED TO PROTESTANTS

“The sacred and holy, general Synod of Trent,….to all and each one throughout the whole of Germany, whether ecclesiastics or Seculars, of whatsoever degree, estate, condition, quality they be, who may wish to repair to this ecumenical and general Council, the public faith and full security, which they call a safe-conduct,…. as also to withdraw whensoever they shall think fit. It hath furthermore seemed good to the holy Synod, that if, for their greater liberty and security, they desire that certain judges be deputed on their behalf, in regard of crimes whether committed, or that may be committed, by them, they shall themselves nominate those who are favorable towards them, even though the said crimes should be ever so enormous and should savor of heresy.”

Specific decrees aimed at the Lutherans are:

 

Decrees of the Fourth Session

DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES which partially reads:

 

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.”

 

DECREE CONCERNING THE EDITION, AND THE USE, OF THE SACRED BOOKS which partially reads:

 

“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold;”

 

 

Decrees of the Sixth Session

One should read Canons 1 thru 33 “On Justification.” These refute the Lutherans and others.

 

Specifically, the notion that one is justified by “faith alone” is particularly condemned. These canons partially read:

 

“CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith, that, by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.”

 

 

Decrees of the Seventh Session

ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL, which in part reads:

“CANON I.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.”

“CANON VI.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or, that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.”

“CANON VII.-If any one saith, that grace, as far as God's part is concerned, is not given through the said sacraments, always, and to all men, even though they receive them rightly, but (only) sometimes, and to some persons; let him be anathema.”

“CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.”

 

 

Decrees of the Fourteenth Session

ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE – Canons 1 thru 15.

 

 

Decrees of the Eighteenth Session

SAFE-CONDUCT GRANTED TO THE GERMAN NATION

 

 

Decrees of the Twenty-First Session

DECREE ON COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES, AND THE COMMUNION OF INFANTS

 

 

Decrees of the Twenty-second Session

DOCTRINE ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

 

 

Decrees of the Twenty-Third Session

THE TRUE AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, TOUCHING THE SACRAMENT OF (HOLY) ORDER(S)

 

 

 

Decrees of the Twenty-Fifth Session

DECREE CONCERNING PURGATORY

(DECREE) ON THE INVOCATION, VENERATION, AND RELICS, OF SAINTS, AND ON SACRED IMAGES

 

 

I would finally exort you to read over the decrees themselves, they are in excruciatingly clear language.

 

I use the website:

 

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

 

 

“I was just checking to see if JT would get an answer. I was curious myself. Perhaps LL98 overstated his case. Trent, after all, did fix a myriad of Roman abuses that should be mentioned.

And what's wrong with a Catholic bishop admonishing people to live "God centered" lives?”

Posted by: Constantine| Thursday, October 01, 2009 at 03:04 AM

Answer:

Constantine– WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

The Council of Trent did not “fix a myriad of Roman abuses.” The Council of Trent was "Rome," in the  person of the Bishop of Rome, the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and a Council which he called, fixing the abuses of the Church in Europe, many of which sprung up IN THE ABSENCE OF STRONG PAPAL AUTHORITY.

 

Bishop Bodes admonition to live “God centered” lives is of little value when mixed with egregious error, e.g., with a fundamentally flawed understanding of the heresies of Luther.

 

 

In the words of the crass maxim: “I can take a quart of the finest ice cream, mix it with a quart of manure, and I’ll give you one guess what it will taste like!” You want to focus on the quality of the ice-cream, I on the “essence” of the fertilizer.

____________________________________________________________________

 

“I've been checking back, too. In light of the exposure of the ELCA's historical critical nonsense, I'm in a mood to learn if the Lutheran ideas were doomed from the start, or if the modern issues are of their own creation.”

Posted by: JT | Friday, October 02, 2009 at 12:40 PM

 

 

Answer: Lutheranism, like all the Protestant heresies, was doomed from the start.

 

Luther was doomed from the start - he a priest who renounced his vows, (who married a nun who renounced her vows), he who denied the Real Presence, he who denied the Seven Sacraments, he who denied the totality of the canonical Scriptures, he who denied the veneration of icons and relics, he who denied the existence of Purgatory, he who denied the authority of the successor of St. Peter, he who denied the necessity of good works…AND ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY.

 

I have no idea if you and/or Constantine are Protestant? From the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church, the true Church, Luther was (and his followers are) in gross error.

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." -  Matthew 16:18

Put your trust in Holy Mother Church.

Smoking Bishop

I wish this post were about the Olde English drink called "Smoking Bishop" immortalized in the last lines of Charles Dickens' immensely Christian work - "A Christmas Carol," but it's not.

This post is about the type of smoke, sulfurous smoke, that comes from the pit of Hell and burning brimstone.

The type of smoke Pope Pius XII reportedly mentioned when his Jesuit advisers, in the late 1940s, were trying to convince him that Opus Dei was heretical and that it's now sainted founder Josemarie Escriva should  be silenced. Pius XII reportedly shouted to the Jesuits "I smell sulfur" as he rejected their specious arguments and ordered them out of his office.

This post is about our old friend Bishop Robinson of the Protestant Episcopal Church of North America. While driving to a meeting in Sacramento yesterday, I caught an interview with Bishop Robinson on National Public Radio's show - "All Things Considered" about his upcoming inaugural prayer. You can listen to the five minute interview at:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99311912

The NPR reporter asked "Bishop" Robinson if he "found inspiration in previous inaugural prayers?"

He responded:

"What I've actually found is caution. I've read back over earlier inaugural prayers over the last 30 or 40 years and I've been shocked at how aggressively Christian they are. I intend not to invoke the Name of Jesus.....rather than insert that and exclude them (non-Christians) from the prayer. I want this to be a prayer to the god of many understandings."

"Let's face it each one of us has a different understanding of G*d. No one of us can fully understand G*d or G*d would not be G*d."

The obviously surprised reporter then quipped:

I'm not sure that the god of many understandings has ever been invoked in an inaugural prayer before?"

Robinson closed by saying:

"well I'm first in many categories."

We should all pray for our Anglican brethren.

Gay Bishop to Lead-Off Obama Inaugural

N.H. Bishop Invited to D.C. to give prayer

Robinson to speak at inaugural event

By ANNMARIE TIMMINS
Concord Monitor staff

New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, an outspoken, international gay rights leader, has been asked to give a prayer at one of President-elect Barack Obama's first inauguration events at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

The announcement follows weeks of criticism from Robinson and gay-rights groups over Obama's decision to tap the Rev. Rick Warren, who's likened committed gay relationships to incest and polygamy, to pray on inauguration day.

Robinson, an early Obama supporter, said last month the choice of Warren left him feeling as if he'd been slapped in the face. In a telephone interview this weekend, Robinson, of Weare, said he doesn't believe Obama has included him in response to the Warren criticism. But he said his inclusion won't go unnoticed by the gay and lesbian community.

"It's important for any minority to see themselves represented in some way," Robinson said. "Whether it be a racial minority, an ethnic minority or, in our case, a sexual minority. Just seeing someone like you up front matters."

Warren, author and high-profile pastor of a California mega-church, will still give the invocation at the Jan. 20 inauguration, shortly before Obama delivers his much-anticipated inaugural address. Robinson will share his invocation prayer Sunday afternoon on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during an inaugural kick-off event.

See the full article at:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090112/FRONTPAGE/901120347

________________________

What I will next type may shock some of you. The most important issue in this farce is not the fact that "Bishop" Robinson is gay.

Here he is pictured with his "partner" Mark Andrews dsuring their civil union ceremony.

While I do believe that "Bishop" Robinson will be judged by his actions, as we all will, the most important issue is that "Bishop" Robinson of the "Protestant Episcopal Curch of North America" is not a Christian.

Here's the money quote:

"Robinson doesn't yet know what he'll say, but he knows he won't use a Bible.

'While that is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans,' Robinson said. 'I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer.' " (my underline)

,

,

"Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me." - John 14:6

"Dicit ei Iesus ego sum via et veritas et vita nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per me." - Iohannes 14:6

_____________________

Relatedly, Pastor Rick Warren (pic above) is the victim of a Palinesque smear campaign.

Even the article above states:

"The announcement follows weeks of criticism from Robinson and gay-rights groups over Obama's decision to tap the Rev. Rick Warren, who's likened committed gay relationships to incest and polygamy, to pray on inauguration day."

(my bold and underline added.)

Pastor Warren has never said any such thing. He has rightly said that if two persons of the same sex are allowed to civilly marry, that it is logical to assume that the argument will be put forward that three or four or more persons should be allowed to marry (POLYGAMY) or that cousins should be allowed to marry (INCEST).

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

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?

Brett Favre, Tom Brady & Catholicism

In Ictu Oculi, a vanitas painting by, Juan de Valdés Leal, (1622-1690)

Here's an interesting article which attempts to contrast Brett Favre and Tom Brady, both of whom were raised Catholic, from a Catholic perspective: Brett Favre, exemplary American Catholic

Here's a quote:

Earlier this month, legendary Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre announced his retirement after seventeen years in the NFL. He walked away holding most of the major records at his position, and as much as any athlete of his time he attracted not just admiration but veneration, inspiring even a "Packers Prayer" ("Our Favre . . . Hallowed be thine arm"). Favre has become a football deity, but he has also achieved the status of an exemplary American Catholic. Indeed, the website Catholic Online (www.catholic.org) names him second among the "Top 10 Catholic Heroes of the Super Bowl." For many Americans, "Our Favre" is less a divine figure than a fellow believer. Favre, though, is a peculiar Christian athlete whose career defies familiar evangelical optimism in favor of a darker, distinctly Catholic vision.

Brett Favre would never be mistaken for Kurt Warner, the born-again former St. Louis Rams quarterback who accepted the Super Bowl trophy in 2000 with a "Thank you, Jesus." Unlike his late Baptist teammate Reggie White, Favre did not convene on-field prayers or claim to receive personal communication from God. Green Bay's gunslinger was never that earnest or, frankly, that devout. The product of a small Mississippi town, his career brings to mind the fiction of Flannery O'Connor or Walker Percy, Southern Catholics for whom faith was often occluded and salvation often arduous.

More than any public proclamations of devotion, Brett Favre's well-publicized personal suffering marked him as a model Catholic for those who cared to look. Early in his career, he struggled with addictions to painkillers and alcohol. In December 2003, his father died unexpectedly. Ten months later, his wife Deanna was diagnosed with breast cancer, only a few days after her brother had been killed in an ATV accident. The next year, Brett's mother's home was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Most of these travails followed his lone Super Bowl victory, evoking not so much the generous God of prosperity theology as a more inscrutable Almighty, intent on humbling the exalted. In her bestselling 2007 memoir Don't Bet Against Me!, Deanna Favre compared the couple's ordeals to those of the biblical Job. Indeed, Brett increasingly exuded a Job-like equanimity, remarking after his wife's diagnosis that "if I asked why my father died or why Deanna has breast cancer, I would have to ask why I throw touchdown passes."

Contrast the Favres' litany of grief with the high living of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, also raised Catholic. Brady had a child last year with actress Bridget Moynahan, and then took up with supermodel Gisele Bündchen. Wisconsin's Catholics, who include more recovering alcoholics and cancer survivors than actresses and supermodels, may respect Brady's skill on the football field, but they understand much more deeply a religion of pain and loss. Brady, a three-time Super Bowl winner, is conspicuously absent from the "Top 10 Catholic Heroes of the Super Bowl."

My thoughts:

I don't know much about the personal or professional lives of either of these men beyond blurbs I've read about them here and there. I'm not a fan, but I'm not a "hater" either.

I'm not sure why the article appears to imply Brett Favre is an exemplary Catholic. I suppose I can see good and bad in the things the article shares about his personal history.

The author doesn't seem to think much of Tom Brady. Again, not knowing much about him, I wouldn't presume to pass any judgment on him. I will say I've heard and read more about Tom Brady than Brett Favre, and I've noticed a tendency to tear him down. I'm not sure how much of that is due to Mr. Brady's personal choices and personality, though, and I sometimes get the perception that some writers seem envious of Tom Brady. Maybe they are just articulating the sense that Mr. Brady hasn't always used the gifts God gave him in an unselfish way or demonstrated a sense of humility and a recognition that anything good that he has came from God and was given to him so he could glorify God and lead others to God, but I don't generally perceive sports journalism as tending to think along those lines, especially because of the tendency many sports journalists have exhibited of making heroes out of men they knew were living lifestyles that were debauched. Which is another reason I tend to think picking on Tom Brady has become popular and a potential means of selling advertising space. It may just be that lots of people are envious of the life Tom Brady has led and resent him in the same way they may have resented athletic golden boys in their high school years – or maybe there are things Tom Brady has said and done in public that I don't know about. You probably know more than I do in that regard.

I do know the media, whether it be television, radio, or print (including scholarly biographies) can't tell us what anybody is really like, at least not in the way actually knowing them can, even if we utilize reliable sources or perform extensive studies about the life of some individual. It's also helpful to remember that the way any medium presents any given individual tells you a great deal about the one presenting the information and the perspective (lens) through which they are filtering the information you're receiving.

People often talk and act like they think they know any number of celebrities on a personal level, but they can't and don't really know these people. They know of them. They know what has been reported about these people as being of public interest. They know the image the media, sometimes in collaboration with a celebrity and sometimes against a celebrity's wishes, presents the person to the media.

Sound bites and images are used to present the public with an image that may or may not be accurate, but which is designed to either build the person up or tear them down. This helps sell newspapers, magazines, products, tickets, etc. Sometimes they'll stick with an image that resonates with people, even if it isn't entirely accurate or fair. Sometimes a person is stuck with a label that may reflect one particular choice at one time in their lives, but definitely not the totality of the person.

That's why it's dangerous to give too much credence to the way the media presents celebrities and even the way celebrities present themselves.

You can read ten different biographies on the life of a given individual and even gain some sort of insight or sense about the person, especially in terms of what can be accepted as trustworthy and factual. Yet biographies can't tell you everything there is to know about any person. They give you highlights and paint a picture of a person's life, but can't possibly tell you what it is or was like to live each day in that person's skin.

I don't recommend making a hero out of anyone though, and certainly not an idol. I don't care if they're an athlete or a movie star or a priest or a bishop. Our only idol should be Jesus Christ. We can honor the saints because of the ways in which they reflect Him, but it's generally safer not to try to canonize people before they've died and everything that can be known about their fidelity to the Lord is scrutinized by the Church.

When we make idols who are unworthy of our admiration, we set ourselves up for a fall. Some people end up leaving the Church because of the actions of a priest, religious man or woman, or a bishop. They've clearly put these people on pedestals where they never belonged, and when the truth was revealed, it shattered their faith. Their faith should never have depended on these people to begin with, so the revelation that these people were human, flawed, broken, and even sinful should never be so great of a stumbling block for them as to ruin their relationship with Christ.

Still, there is a paradox we must all be conscious: Despite the fact that we shouldn't make idols out of other people, we must all be a good example to others and will have to render an account before God if our choices scandalized others (which is to say: tempted or led them to commit sin). Nobody should be a idol. The evil choices of others do not justify making those choices ourselves or diminish our responsibility for choosing to imitate or defend them.

To those who have been given much, much will be expected, and the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Yes, some people have been given much, but have wasted their gifts by either not using them or only using them selfishly, but that shouldn't shatter or shock us unless we've given these people more importance than they were due.

Whatever the case, people should resist the temptation to focus on the deficiencies and sins of others in a way that distracts them from honestly recognizing their own failings and amending their own lives.

Any thoughts?

Obama's Divisive Pastor

Link: sevenload.com

Bishop Warns Catholics To Avoid Life Teen Founder's Renegade Services

Here's the story: Bishop warns Catholics to avoid services started by Life Teen founder

Here's a quote:

A Jan. 3 statement posted on the Web sites of the diocese and St. Timothy Parish said the diocese "wishes to express its grave concern for Catholics who may be misled or confused by the actions of Dale Fushek and Mark Dippre." Dippre is a former associate pastor of St. Timothy who left public ministry in 2002 and later married.

The diocesan statement described Dippre as "a priest not in good standing" and said both men's actions "are not in union with the Catholic Church and may potentially mislead well-intentioned Catholics and other members of the Christian faithful."

"It is important for the faithful to know that both priests are acting contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church and remain disobedient to directives of the bishop of Phoenix to whom they pledged obedience and respect when they were ordained to the priesthood," it continued.

The diocesan statement encouraged Catholics "to refrain from attending or supporting the Praise and Worship Center. We remind Catholics that the ultimate form of praise and worship is and always will be the holy sacrifice of the Mass, and we urge them to keep the Mass as the center of their lives. There is no substitution for the graces received at Mass and no prayer more edifying."

The Web site of the Praise and Worship Center says organizers do not encourage people to either join or leave any particular church or denomination. The center "is not a 'new religion,'" it says, "but is a gathering of people of diverse religious backgrounds and experience as a community for the purpose of praising God in prayer and in service."

The center's mission statement calls for building a community through "worship of God, breaking open the word, total acceptance of each person and learning to love more deeply," to supplement the faith journey of its members.

In a note on the Web site, signed by "Dale," Msgr. Fushek said the goal of the center is to create the type of spiritual renewal experience found at the "tent revivals" he held as a pastor.

"First, we desire to create a gathering of people, of different faiths and backgrounds, in order to create community," he wrote. "Secondly, we desire to create an environment where lively prayer and music ignites our hearts and make us all more passionate for God."

Msgr. Fushek did not respond to Catholic News Service efforts to interview him.

Jim Dwyer, spokesman for the Phoenix Diocese, told CNS that although Msgr. Fushek, a former vicar general of the diocese, has said he resigned from the priesthood in November "it's not that simple. You don't just resign."

Dwyer said, as far as he knows, the process has not begun for Msgr. Fushek to be laicized, which involves an appeal to the Vatican. Dippre has never been formally laicized, Dwyer said, but the diocese considers him "functionally laicized" because he has not been in ministry and has had no ties to the diocese for several years.

But, according to Dwyer, people are confused about Msgr. Fushek's status which prompted the diocese's statement. When the Praise and Worship Center's activities were announced, the diocese neither encouraged nor discouraged people from participating, he said.

But after the first service, the diocese received calls from people who still consider Msgr. Fushek a priest in good standing and asked whether they should participate, he said.

Another problem is that it's unclear what the plans are for the Praise and Worship Center, Dwyer said. "In a sense, it's competing with the Catholic Church. If they're not trying to draw people away, why are they trying to get people to contribute to building up something?"

Dwyer said he knew nothing about reports that employees of St. Timothy Parish were told their jobs were at risk if they participate in the Praise and Worship Center.

"I'm not aware of any direct threats," Dwyer said. "But I'd certainly consider it poor judgment if you're supportive of someone who's being disobedient to the bishop."

You will know them by their fruits.

See also:

"Father Dale" Fallout: Life Teen Founder Indicted For Sexual Misconduct With Young Men Is At Odds With His Diocese

Indicted Life Teen Founder Starts Non-Denominational "Worship Center"

Any thoughts?

Clintonian

See also:

Mitt Romney Attended A Planned Parenthood Fundraiser In 1994

Jimmy Akin On Mitt Romney's Speech: Not Impressed

Any thoughts?

One More Reason Not To Heart Huckabee: Huckabee Forces Attack El Rushbo

Here's the links: Mike Huckabee: The anti-Limbaugh candidate

Huckabee Forces Attack El Rushbo

Huckabee's Rollins Trashes Rush Instead of Debating Conservatism

Identity Politics and the Hucksters – We've seen this phenomenon before with Perot.

My thoughts:

The Republican party is being hurt by the self-centered grab for power by men who have no business running for the Republican nomination. Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and even Ron Paul, shouldn't be running and they're dividing the party by doing so. It may be good for the party to debate its core principles and sort of find its way back from the moderate policies of both Bush presidencies, but not at the expense of losing an election when we're so close to having a Supreme Court with a strict constructionalist majority.

Huckabee is a problem for the Republican party. He's using his Christian identity to grab votes, and it's apparently working, but at the expense of the Republican party and the conservative base.

I'm hoping Huckabee's poll numbers don't reflect his actual standing among voters and that he turns out to be the new Howard Dean.

Liberals are salivating at the idea of Huckabee as the GOP nominee, because Huckabee is loathsome to their base and he'll bring their base o the polls in the same way Hillary will bring the Republican base to the polls. They also love the fact that he's going to be an easy target. Republicans are already queasy from Huckabee's use of religion for political gain.

Success for Huckabee now will only help Rudy Giuliani or possibly John McCain. That's why FOX News (which is clearly pro-Giuliani – to the point of ignoring Fred Thompson in much of their coverage of the primaries, especially on The O'Reilly Factor) is building up Huckabee's candidacy. If Huckabee can knock out Thompson (the only electable, consistent conservative running, and the apparent favorite in the blogosphere and on the internet) and/or hurt Romney, then Giuiani and McCain (who are currently tanking in the polls) have a chance to come back, because Huckabee can't carry states without a big evangelical base, many sensible conservatives won't like his betrayal of conservative principles, and many conservatives will eventually realize Huckabee is not the best nominee to go up against the Democrats in the general election.

Huckabee is not a good candidate for conservatives, because he's not a conservative. As Ann Coulter pointed out, he's running as an evangelical candidate, but he isn't even a consistent evangelical. His positions on Supreme Court decisions are bad for social conservatives. His positions on taxes and big government are bad for fiscal conservatives. His positions on immigration, foreign policy, and executive pardons are bad for all conservatives. Mike Huckabee is essentially a pro-life liberal.

As Rush Limbaugh asked on his program:

"If we can choose a candidate who is pro-life and anti-same-sex marriage and good on national security, illegal immigration, taxes, and spending, why shouldn't we choose that candidate? Why do we have to choose somebody who's trying to get a redefinition of conservatism to comport to his views? By the way, this is not just about Huckabee. This has been my lament from the moment this campaign began, if you recall."

I'm hoping conservatives in Iowa who support Huckabee or Romney realize Fred Thompson is best for conservatism and the pro-life movement.

Otherwise, Republicans may well have to deal with Giuliani as the nominee, which will seriously divide the Republican party.

I'm baffled as to why Huckabee, whose own brand of "compassionate conservatism" will produce the same kind of fiscal policies that caused George W. Bush to fall out of favor with many conservatives is suddenly okay for Mike Huckabee.

That's why I don't heart Huckabee.

Any thoughts?