Monday, November 29, 2010

All Generations Laud and Honor Thee




Nine Day Novena to the Immaculate Conception starts today.

This particular Novena was said by my parents in 1955 after 7 years of marriage, trying to start a family and being told it would not be possible.   I was born the next year, on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.  

She rocks.

Archbishop Dolan on Fox and Friends



"..somebody beyond us, Him, Her or whatever you want?"

Christ and His One, Holy, Apostolic Church is the Light shining upon the Hill but for many priests and Bishops they've lost the desire to go and make disciples.

Could be a teenager who is being tempted away from Catholicism or Christianity by her peers to worship mother earth with them was just given constructive permission.

Think brain think.

Gotta do better than this.

Go, therefore, 
and make disciples of all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, 

and of the Holy Spirit,

 teaching them to observe 

all that I have commanded you. 
 And behold, 
I am with you always, 
until the end of the age."

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Pagan Thanksgiving at the White House

Barack Hussein made history again - the first ever White House Thanksgiving proclamation that omits God.

The proclamation goes on to call Thanksgiving Day "a unique national tradition we all share" that unites people as "thankful for our common blessings."

"This is a time for us to renew our bonds with one another, and we can fulfill that commitment by serving our communities and our Nation throughout the year," it continues.

All other presidential Thanksgiving proclamations directly refer to "God," "Providence," or another appellation for the divine being.

But Obama's historic decision to avoid directly mentioning God in the Thanksgiving proclamation doesn't necessarily come as a surprise. Earlier this year Obama similarly made history on Inaguration Day by explicitly referencing "non-believers" in his speech, which, according to USA Today, was the first time in history that a President had done so."

Yeah, well, you know what they say when you're ashamed of God.

Good luck with that.

Michelle also had a Thanksgiving message - A one day pass to eat whatever we want.

Here are the wondrous statements from Mrs Messiah, at the end of this UPI article.

Michelle Obama said it's fine to eat what you want on Thanksgiving. "Don't worry about how much you eat. Just enjoy it," she said. "This is the time. Have pie."

Got that? We could have eaten anything that we wanted last Thursday! Why? Because Michelle said we could, that's why! Wow! I wonder if that applied to trans-fats! Does that mean that Happy Meals, with toys, returned to California McDonalds?

Then she said, "have pie". Next thing you know, she'll be saying "let them eat cake!" Oh, joy!!

But... on a serious note, Thanksgiving is over! Does that now mean we cannot eat what we want? Does anyone realize how arrogant these statements are?

I can't wait until these two turkeys are out of our White House!



Rejoice, rejoice, Emmanuel shall come to Thee Oh Israel.

A Blessed Advent!



I love these. It feels a little co-opting Christmas right back!

The King of Love.
Christ is Love.


King of Kings.
Lord of Lords.
For the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
He shall reign forever and ever.

Just a reminder.

"O)

Friday, November 26, 2010

Is Marco Rubio a Devout Roman Catholic?

I didn't pick up the story earlier this month when the story broke that Marco Rubio, who describes himself as a 'devout' Catholic who sometimes goes to Mass and other times goes to a "non-denominational" (?) Baptist Church.

If Mark Rubio was hired by the Archdiocese to run the Chancery, I would have been all over this story but on reflection, I hoped and prayed a good priest or Bishop would reach out to Marco and see if they could catch him in the net and bring him back to the Sacraments.


I went through a period in my early 20s and then again in my 30s when I was hanging by a thread to the Catholic Church.  I actually even visited a few other Christian churches (thankfully those experiences left me empty).

 Devout Catholic isn't a word I'd use for that period of my life.


If Rubio is courting the religious right by misrepresenting his faith, running around like John Kerry or Ted Kennedy does when they exploit Catholics, I missed it.   It would be dumb to tarnish his credibility with this kind of foolishness because his political convictions stand on their own merits.  I don't think the guy would have a problem picking up the Catholic vote, so I chalked it up to some kind of misunderstanding.   This story just didn't sit right with me     Does Eric Guinta vote for or against people on account of their religion?  Does he think Catholics are only endorsing Catholics or we're going to jump the ship of a politician because he's not going to Mass?

We pray for him, we may encourage priests we know in the area to reach out, but we vote for people because of their political convictions.

The New York Times picked up the controversy today.

Frankly, the where Rubio is worshipping has the stink of an agenda on it though I can't quite put my finger on what it is.  (The Romneybots?)

Condomplations and Purification

I hope everyone had a wonderful day yesterday.

It was good to have a day of from thinking about condomversy, wasn't it?

Fr. Z continues to post coverage with his thoughts.  Fr. Z is a bit more of an optomist than I.  I'm not sure I see the kerfuffle as the Pope saying something controversial that contradicts fidelity to Church teaching so that we the people in the pews can kick the conversation around.

What purpose would this serve?   The Pope is the interpreter of teaching.  Anything we now say to our children or anyone else has been undermined.

When somebody is asking you about morality in sexuality and condoms, and asks you whether it would ever be moral to use a condom, specifically in preventing the spread of HIV, it would be easy to say, "No, though I understand the intention, condoms are unreliable and will actually increase a partner's chances of getting HIV.  The morally responsible thing to do is to accept your cross and abstain from sex."

It is not rocket science.

There are very serious consequences to lives and souls.

Think of our own sons coming to us and asking if it is morally responsible to use a condom when sleeping with the whores on Columbus Avenue.   Well, no actually.  Because you just might get HIV and pass that long someday to your wife and children.  More importantly, there's responsibility to talk about abstaining from situations that jeopardize their salvation.    We are not here to give constructive permission.  We are here to hold the line of truth.

If our mind was somewhere else and we make a mistake in answering our children - and they spread that error up at the high school, we'd be frantic to set the record straight, right?  We wouldn't read what we said in the school newspaper and in a followup question about whether we meant the advice strictly for our sons or whether it's also okay for our girls to use condoms, we wouldn't send somebody imprudent out to say "yes, the most important thing is to think about saving the life of the person you're sleeping with".

What purpose in matters of the soul would it serve to throw out something that was received poorly and with errors and let the immature and uncatechized hash it out at the high school?

A lot of times lowly bloggers are taken out of context to say things we never intended to convey.    Or sometimes, we even make a boo-boo.   It is important to correct them.  It stands to reason the Vicar of Christ would be subject to the same hysteria.  As Cardinal Burke says HERE, it will be important for the Holy See to clarify the mess.


If the media has misunderstood it, is this perhaps a failure of Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican to communicate effectively? Is there a need to “dumb things down” so the media gets it?
I believe the fact that the media has interpreted this in a way, at least from what I can gather from the communications that I’ve received, that is false interpretation and is rather widespread, that it will be rather important for the Holy See now to clarify the matter. [The Vatican Press Office did indeed issue a clarification Nov. 22, saying, “The Pope again makes it clear that his intention was not to take up a position on the problem of condoms in general; his aim, rather, was to forcefully reaffirm that the problem of AIDS cannot be solved simply by distributing condoms, because much more needs to be done: prevention, education, help, advice, accompaniment, both to prevent people from falling ill and to help them if they do.]
That’s what’s going to have to happen now, because even some of the commentators who might be in general well disposed to the Holy See could misinterpret this and take it that indeed the Holy Father is making some change in the Church’s position in regards to the use of condoms, and that would be very sad.
It would indeed, but as some spiritual advisors have told me somewhere along the way, we can't stop what is predicted in the Book of Revelation, can we.    Sowing confusion is very much a part of the sifting and at every step of the way, we choose Christ and Truth and His Church, the Sacraments.
There's some great reading at Mark Mallet which I wholeheartedly agree with, specifically dealing with the condom controversy here and with the Book of Revelation here

But this is Christ’s Church, and thus, we have to recognize the hand of Our Lord upon this difficult moment, that God Himself is directing His Bride’s destiny. Pondering on St. Gregory’s word should give every Catholic pause to ask the question: "Am I in unity with Christ and His Church or not?" By this I mean, if Christ is the "truth", am I in unity with truth? The question is not a small one:
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him. (John 3:36)
Jesus died to set us free from sin saying, "the truth will set you free." As I wrote in Living the Book of Revelation, the battle between the "woman" and the "dragon" begins as a battle overtruth that culminates, for a brief time, in the reign of anti-truth—the reign of the beast. If we are living in the proximity of those days, then the slavery of mankind will be achieved by leading them into falsehood. Or rather, those who reject the teachings of the Faith revealed by Christ and transmitted through Apostolic succession will find themselves serving another god.
Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned. (2 Thess 2:11-12)
 A GREAT SIFTING
Jesus said that, at the end of the age, there would be a great sifting of the weeds from the wheat (Matt 13:27-30). How would we be sifted?
Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household. (Matt 10:34-36)
What is the sword? It is the truth.
Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart. (Heb 4:12)
And so we see this sword is indeed double-edged. On the one hand, it has been used to strike many shepherds:
Strike the shepherd, that the sheep may be scattered. (Zec 13:7)
Woe to the shepherds of Israel who have been pasturing themselves! You did not strengthen the weak nor heal the sick nor bind up the injured. You did not bring back the strayed nor seek the lost… (Ezekiel 34:1-11)
On the other hand, the sheep have often followed their own desires, ignoring the truth engraved on their consciences, and following after idols. And thus, God has permitted the sheep to go hungry in many places:
Yes, days are coming, says the Lord GOD, when I will send famine upon the land: Not a famine of bread, or thirst for water, but for hearing the word of the LORD. (Amos 8:11)
THE POPE AND THE CONDOM STORM
What does all this have to do with the Pope and his spontaneous remarks about the use of condoms?....
The Holy Father’s words are no doubt controversial and ‘risky.’ The result has been mass confusion. But his remarks are also (whether intended or not) serving to "penetrate even between soul and spirit" exposing "the reflections and thoughts of the heart." Of course, what the Pope said was not the Word of God much less an authoritative statement. It was his personal viewpoint—a theologian theologizing. But the response to his words are revealing much about the "thoughts of the heart" of both sheep and their shepherds, not to mention the wolves. We are seeing a further sifting in the Church…
So the real story here is not the theological speculation of a pontiff, but the response rebounding throughout the world. Will some simply bail on the Holy Father for what is said to be yet another public relations gaffe? Will others use this as an excuse to uses condoms particularly for contraception, ignoring the official teaching of the Church? Will the media use this to sow lies and confusion to further discredit the Holy Father? And will yet others remain on the Rock of Truth, despite the pounding waves of mockery and misunderstanding?
That is the question: who will run from the "Garden" and who will remain with the Lord? For the days of sifting are growing more intense and the choice for or against the truth is becoming more defined by the hour until, some day, it will be definitive—and then the Church will be handed over to her enemies as was Christ, her Head.  
The tragedy is that few even realize we are in The Great Purification.
Let nothing separate us from the price of our soul's salvation and our Beloved.




Thursday, November 25, 2010

Happy and Blessed Thanksgiving!

This year,  I'm thankful I'm not hosting Thanksgiving.  My house is going to look exactly the way I leave it, leaving a lot more time for the Christmas decoration kickoff.   My children are thankful Thanksgiving won't involve a little kitchen fire. (For new readers, I've had a few little mishaps in the last few years during Thanksgiving and Christmas)

:O)

Every holiday does have those little mishaps, don't they?   This year, all I was responsible for were the (20 pounds of) potatoes ("puddadahs" as we call them in the Boston Irish Catholic community!) and a lemon meringue pie.  I decided to try 'yukon golds' for the first time in my life.  I'm an idaho fan (even though they're a little trickier to mash).    

I can honestly say I'm not a big fan of the yukons and I'll be going back to Idahoes.   They take forever to boil and the dynamics of mashing more complicated and I don't like the taste quite as much as I like Idahoes.

Anyway - Have a wonderful Thanksgiving.


Thank you Lord for the Sacraments of our salvation, the love of family and friends, the food, the comforts in our challenges and grief and all the pleasures and treasures in this beautiful life.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Condoms for Everyone

Today, the Vatican broaden it's safe sex advice to include everyone.

Vatican Shifts Grounds on Condoms


The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told reporters Tuesday that he asked the pope whether he intended his comments to apply only to men. Benedict replied that it really didn’t matter, the important thing was that the person took into consideration the life of another, Lombardi said.

"I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine," Lombardi said. "He told me no. The problem is this: ... It’s the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship."

"This is if you’re a man, a woman, or a transsexual. ... The point is it’s a first step of taking responsibility, of avoiding passing a grave risk onto another," Lombardi said.
Is this guy playing with a full deck?

I am beginning to wonder if Rev. Federino Lombardi's basement is loaded with communications from Boston about cronyism, corruption, abortion contracts and a 'non-discrimination policy' or the Boston crew went over to the Consistory and has hijacked the communications office like they did 66 Brooks Drive!


Women who last week had the back up of the Holy See that moral responsibility when you are infected with HIV is to abstain from risky sex no longer have that shelter.   There is nothing moral or responsible about risking sex with a condom when you have HIV. 

The breakdown of the culture already include assertions that the objections of Bishops to give out condoms go against the Pope.  

Dr. Haas has spoken up about pouring gasoline on the fire by Lombardi HERE.

Dr. John Haas suggested the spokesman might have misunderstood the Pope’s meaning when he told a press conference Nov. 23 that the Pope would condone condom use not only by male prostitutes, but also by women and even “transsexuals.”

As controversy over the condom issue continued for a fourth day in media reports and in comments from international agencies dealing with the AIDS crisis, Haas told CNA, “We ought to let the Pope speak for himself."



 The  idea that it's in the bailiwick of the Pope to start giving out advice on how to drunk drive safely, rob a bank with dignity for human life or how women should acquiesce to sex with a leper because he's he is holding a condom in his hand makes me want to hear it from his mouth too.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Just when you think it can't possibly get any crazier

....you find Russ Shaw pining for Cardinal Bernadin.

Condomonium in Christendom

The Vatican has since issued a clarification since I posted Go Forth and Wear a Condom and I thought I would weigh in on all the fun of the last 48 hours or so.

The clarification was...well, to be honest,  it wasn't really all that helpful.


The statement says Pope Benedict states that AIDs cannot be solved only by the distribution of condoms, and, in fact, concentrating on condoms just trivializes sexuality, which loses its meaning as an expression of love and becomes like a drug.
At the same time, the Pope considered an exceptional situation in which the exercise of sexuality represents a real risk to the lives of others. In this case, the Pope does not morally justify the exercise of disordered sexuality, but believes that the use of condoms to reduce the risk of infection is a “first step on the road to a more human sexuality”, rather than not to use it and risking the lives of others.
Father Lombardi’s statement clarifies Pope Benedict XVI has not reformed or changed the Church’s teaching, but by putting it in perspective reaffirms the value and dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility.


But condoms do not reduce the risk of infection, the Pope and the Holy See should be advising that the moral action to avoid risking lives of others is abstinence.    Further, this makes it seems like throwing on a condom reaffirms the value and dignity of human sexuality as an expression of love and responsibility.  

As I said the other day, it is enabling somebody to resume sexual activity and put their partner at risk when they might have followed the old advice from previous Popes and abstained from sexual activity which leads to a zero incidence of giving HIV to your wife or husband.

This reminds me of an incident about a decade ago when prolifers were fighting some piece of  nutty sex-ed legislation with the Massachusetts Legislature and one of the local Bishops here at the time volunteered to testify.  He did a great job.  On the way out, the press was waiting for him outside of the hearing room and baited him into some question that they blew up the next day in the paper.   We somehow managed to keep it stalled and when it came time for the second hearing, God Bless this Bishop, he came again to help us out.   Again, he did a fantastic job.  Again, the press was waiting for him and baited him into saying something else that had the potential for our side to lose some ground but the bill didn't go anywhere.  

When the bill was scheduled for the third hearing, the day before I met with the Bishop to touch base with him and also tell him how much we appreciated his willingness to go personally to help us.  Near the end of the conversation I said (with a grin on my face) "Your Excellency, after you testify, keep walking to your car without stopping to speak to the press."   "REALLY??" he asked.    "Really", I said, "if they ask you anything just say "Sorry, I'm on my way to a meeting.  My testimony speaks for itself".       We had a good laugh but I got the feeling nobody ever told him his forte was not answering questions 'off the cuff' and how to deal with it.

I know there's a lot of blame on the press and I agree that they jumped on the confusion but on the other hand, the statements themselves are less than stellar.


We think and hope we know what he's saying.  

If you're going to get stinking drunk and drive home from your Thanksgiving dinner at Aunt Fran's, the first step in moral responsibility is not to put anyone else in the car with you.  For the sake of value and dignity to human life send your children home with somebody who is sober and hope for the best.

Perhaps if you're a prostitute and you come down with HIV, you might want to switch to selling crack pipes or something like that.    

Ok, I actually don't know where he was going with it.  I understand that he was saying there was a shred of grace left because his thought process is that his own sins have consequences to others and should take a step towards responsibility but it could have been said without the examples used which are definitely confusing.  As is the clarification.     I love our Pope but to be completely honest I can't rationalize the safe sex advice.   We'd all be a lot happier if somebody/somebodies who has a little more savvy with the secular press and culture circles back with the Pope to take another whack at the clarification.


This was my personal favourite gem from the press:   The Pope wanted to kick-start debates about condom use according to "Vatican insiders".

For years, divisions in the Vatican have held up any effort to reconcile the church's ban on contraception with the need to help halt the spread of AIDS. Theologians have studied the possibility of condoning limited condom use as a lesser evil, and reports years ago said the Vatican was considering a document on the issue, though opposition apparently blocked publication.
One senior Vatican official said Monday he believed the pope just "wanted to kick-start the debate." He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
For the deeply conservative Benedict, it seemed like a bold leap into modernity — and a nightmare for many at the Vatican. The pope's comments sparked a fierce debate among Catholics, politicians and health workers that is certain to reverberate for a long time despite frantic damage control at the Vatican.   

The 'senior official' was so confident about the veracity of his assertions  "he spoke on the condition of anonymity" so his name wouldn't be attached to this asinine statement.  I wonder what rock he was under when the debate was kick started in 1967 until Humane Vitae was  sufficiently kicked under the radar over the last 40 years.  

If you want a good look at how some Catholics exploited the situation - check this out.


Thank you Holy Father.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
God Bless
**
I think this is actually going to open up discussions on various issues. For example, the issue of condoms in Africa, where women are being raped by HIV infected men. Or, in a concern outside of sex, it seems to connect to the question of giving out needles to drug users.
**
The more nonsense I see in the comboxes over at WDTPRS, the more convinced I am that Benedict was right on here. Those most upset have no genuine sense of the Catholic ethical tradition at all. You get the impression they’d think it would be immoral to use a condom as a parachute to save a life.
And, though there certainly is confusion in the MSM about “change” in Church teaching, this isn’t all bad. They used to think we said:
“gay sex = bad + condom = bad, therefore gay sex + condom = really bad.”
They don’t think we believe that anymore. That’s a good thing, even if some of Z’s and TAC’s commenters actually do believe that.
**
You do realize he is seriously arguing that the Pope said it’s OK for gay men to use condoms because the Pope is gay himself, yes?
**
Be sure to read Archbishop Chaput, Judie Brown and watch Michael Voris for some excellent analysis.   But I think the right course of action here is for the Pope to get a more substantive clarification out there.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

TSA Even Sexually Assaulting Children

This guy in the White House paid no attention whatsoever to a missile launched by what is now believed to be China and he has 10 dollar an hour people fondle and put their down people's pants at airports?



Weird.

Catholic Blogger Coup

I just had to post this one.

No comments are necessary.


:O)

Saturday, November 20, 2010

O Magnum Mysterium

Go Now and Wear a Condom.

While I was over at National Catholic Reporter, I noticed this story by John Allen saying the Pope signaled the acceptance of the distribution of condoms to help prevent HIV from spreading.

The question of condoms arises in chapter eleven, in the context of Benedict’s March 2009 journey to Africa. That trip was largely overshadowed by controversy over comments the pontiff made to reporters aboard the papal plane, to the effect that condoms actually make the HIV/AIDS crisis worse.
Benedict is clearly still annoyed by that reaction, saying he felt he was being “provoked” by the question about condoms. The suggestion was that the church is indifferent to HIV/AIDS, when in reality “the church does more than anyone else,” Benedict says.
Benedict goes on to say that his point was simply that one cannot solve the problem of HIV/AIDS merely by distributing condoms, something that even secular AIDS experts would concede.
While broadly defending traditional Catholic teaching against artificial birth control, Benedict also suggests that in some limited instances the use of a condom might be morally defensible.
“In this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality,” the pope says....Benedict offers the example of a male prostitute. In that situation, he says, the use of a condom “can be a first step in the direction of moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.”
Beyond the question of prostitution, many mainstream Catholic moral theologians have also argued for the moral acceptability of condoms in the case of a married heterosexual couple where one partner is HIV-positive and the other is not. In that set of circumstances, theologians have argued, condoms would be acceptable since the aim is not to prevent new life, but to prevent infection....
Back in 2006, Benedict asked the Pontifical Council for the Health Care Pastoral under Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, who has since retired, to examine precisely that question. Having polled the doctors and other health care professionals, as well as theologians, who consult with the council, Barragán presented the pope with a tentatively positive response – that in the case of couples where one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not, condoms could be justified.
To date that position has not been officially codified, and some Vatican officials have said on background that they worry doing so would be seen publicly as a blanket endorsement of condoms. Yet Benedict’s comments to Seewald suggest that the pope himself is at least positively inclined to such a development. 
There's a lot here, so I'd like to chew off a little bit at a time.

Let's take the easiest to digest.

Could it be possible that the Pope, in mercy, would adjust the teachings of the Church to accommodate condom use between a married couple when a husband is HIV positive?

Catholic teaching about marriage and sexuality is that it is a symbiotic relationship that has to be open to life.  When two people approach the Sacrament of Marriage, if the male is for some reason impotent, or in the rare case of a structural abnormality of the woman that would make it impossible to consummate the marriage,  the teaching is that the couple is not eligible for the Sacrament of Marriage.

The suggestion the Pope would incorporate the exception of wearing a condom in marital relations would signal a change the definition of the eligibility to Sacrament of Marriage which would be quite a dramatic development.

Each act of marital intimacy is supposed to be open to life.  There is some controversy about whether NFP (Natural Family Planning) even violates this principle. But a woman can ovulate twice or something could happen in her cycle that throws off the science of it -- and NFPers are always open to the possibility that God may intervene and bring life into a relationship even with the best laid plans of mice and men and they rejoice in that life.

These new purported papal explanations would signal a change in the meaning and definition of sexuality to an expression of intimacy and pleasure.

If the medical condition of HIV is going to be an exception, a condition that is mostly spread by promiscuity, there would certainly also be exceptions to other medical conditions.

Another way of saying it is, I'm not buying into it.

On a more complex spiritual level, perhaps it's possible an act of dispensation would or could be granted between certain couples but a change in teaching would send such mixed messages to the conscience that would negatively and  materially affect the salvation of many.

The secular world treats our teaching as a merciless understanding of societies where men are promiscuous but the distribution of condoms actually enables men to continue to act irresponsibly, sets the expectation that women will accept this irresponsibility and then play HIV roulette with them when the equipment needs some attention.   Societies living this way disconnect human sexuality from emotions, holiness, God.  Marital relationships and women are miserable from the effects of betrayals of trust the adultery brings into the marriage.

Would the Catholic Church surrender women to accept and enable the promiscuity and build marriages on this shaky foundation?

It isn't gelling for me.

This article in Catholic World Report does a nice job explaining the context of the Pope's statements.  I think I mentioned sometime earlier this week that even when we're being misguided and we are lost, if we are still holding on to a spark of grace, a spark can make a fire.


What is Pope Benedict saying?
We must note that the example that Pope Benedict gives for the use of a condom is a male prostitute; thus, it is reasonable to assume that he is referring to a male prostitute engaged in homosexual acts. The Holy Father is simply observing that for some homosexual prostitutes the use of a condom may indicate an awakening of a moral sense; an awakening that sexual pleasure is not the highest value, but that we must take care that we harm no one with our choices.  He is not speaking to the morality of the use of a condom, but to something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use them.  If such individuals are using condoms to avoid harming another, they may eventually realize that sexual acts between members of the same sex are inherently harmful since they are not in accord with human nature.  The Holy Father does not in any way think the use of condoms is a part of the solution to reducing the risk of AIDs.  As he explicitly states, the true solution involves “humanizing sexuality.”
Anyone having sex that threatens to transmit HIV needs to grow in moral discernment. This is why Benedict focused on a “first step” in moral growth. The Church is always going to be focused on moving people away from immoral acts towards love of Jesus, virtue, and holiness. We can say that the Holy Father clearly did not want to make a point about condoms, but wants to talk about growth in a moral sense, which should be a growth towards Jesus.



Some time ago, I found out a priest I trusted and who knew me quite well violated that trust by taking my children aside and having a nudge and wink conversation with them about using condoms.  He took my 28 years of teaching human sexuality as holy (not to mention extremely pleasurable) expression of emotional and spiritual intimacy and fidelity to God and their husbands/wife and used his Roman collar to water it down to pleasure.  Perhaps for the rest of their lives.

I have some insight as to how that could impact their marriages, their relationships with God, their grace.
I'm wagering that the Pope knows exactly what the kind of changes being attributed to him would mean and my thoughts on this are, he was grossly misquoted, taken out of context or misunderstood.   I'm looking forward to reading others on the matter...though some, not so much.

Pray for the Pope.  The poor man must be extremely frustrated with all of us!

Update with some other lucid observations:

Before you go out and buy a box of Condoms from Cleansing Fire.

Fr. Z.

Pew Lady.

Keep checking the links in my blogroll where I'm sure others will weigh in.

I hate to keep drilling home this week's meme but if you are not in a state of grace, this is a perfect example of how what you're hearing and what people actually may be saying can be radically different and how it can lead you right into temptation and sin.

Take care about with whom you entrust matters of your own soul and the souls of your children.

***UPDATE

My facebook friend Norman Servias, who lives in HIV capital of the world (South Africa) gave me a heads up on this article at Zenit that features the spectacular work of his production company on the matter and a great quote from the local Bishop.

First a quote from the Bishop:


Bishop Hugh Slattery of Tzaneen, South Africa, commissioned the videos as part of a program to respond to HIV/AIDS in an authentically Catholic way.
In an interview with ZENIT, Bishop Slattery said that the aim of the second video, completed last year, is to show that "abstinence before marriage and fidelity within marriage will quickly stop the spread of AIDS."
A third production entitled "Called to Care", will deal with "caring for the sick, the dying, and the AIDS orphans," and a fourth video, due for release later this year, will show "marriage and family as the real solution to the AIDS pandemic."

Change

A new Web site offers videos that document the fight against AIDS from a Catholic perspective. Metanoia Media, producer of the award-winning video "Sowing in Tears" and its follow-up, "The Change Is On," released the site last Friday to give a different perspective on the Pope's words about condoms. "The Change Is On" features unique footage and testimonies of abstinence activists and Catholic AIDS workers in South Africa and Uganda. It documents their successes and the challenging issues they face in the fight against the pandemic.



Norman Servais, head of the South African production company, told ZENIT: "My country, as you know, is the AIDS capital of the world, so speak to us about condoms if you like and we'll tell you that they are not the answer!"
You can find Norman's work HERE.

How degrading and frustrating it must be to women trying to correct the culture to have our village idiots running around throwing promiscuous men condoms.

I bumped into this spoof of the condomaniacs that is worth a read.


The Holy Father was asked in a recent interview to comment on the behaviour of terrorists who plant no warning bombs in heavily populated areas of cities, close to schools and nurseries.  He said it was a bad thing.



He was then asked if it was better if the terrorist telephoned in bomb warnings so that buildings could be evacuated.



The Holy Father said that while engaging in such acts of terrorism was always morally wrong, telephoning a warning "can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with political issues or demands for justice".



Media:  "So you're saying it's okay to plant bombs so long as you use phone warnings?"



Holy Father:  "No, of course not, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of serious injury or death to an innocent person...


Not surprisingly, the theological screwballs at Vox Nova jumped right on the situation to exploit and confuse Church teaching.     It's hard for me to swallow that educated people would believe that the Pope would change Church teaching by leaking it out statements for us all to crack the code in some individual's book.  Therefore, I have a hard time swallowing their 'work' is being done in good faith.  

I'm going to tell you a little story.  A recent convert to the faith, who is on the internet trying to learn about it, was grateful for the Snarlson uproar because it signaled to her that she ought to do more serious diligence about whether Vox Nova is sound.   She spent significant time researching herself, sent me some links that confirmed for her Vox Nova is cleverly wording their dissent.

Characterizing Vox Nova folks as faithful to Church teaching is damaging to people who are recent converts and poorly catechized Catholics.   We need to help our apostolates understand they've got to characterize Vox Nova properly.  

Dissent at the National Catholic Reporter is very obvious but for Catholics who know their faith and are trying to teach it to others, it is damaging to link and reference apostolates and people in a way that implies they are sound Catholic thought.

There's no such thing as 'the truth wins out in the public square' when you are talking about matters of the soul.  It is much more complicated.   When you are operating under the notion that you can give a voice to everyone and the people who have come to trust your judgment are relying on you to point them in the right direction, there are some who may get caught up in the tangled web - especially if they are not in a state of grace or they are a new convert.  We don't offer our space to Richard McBrien, even if a thing or two he writes about the poor could pass the muster of Catholic teaching.  By doing so, people will think they can link and follow what Richard McBrien teaches as important to pay attention to.

There are some self-appointed arbiters of 'charity' around the internet who have derailed because they can't see the bigger picture and do not understand matters of the soul.   Don't be one of them.  If you run into one of them, do what you can to advise them.

Take some advice from this fool and keep 23rd psalm handy when you do because you might just find yourself getting a 'charitable' boot in the fanny.



Joan Chittister's Treatise for New Seminarians

Larry at Acts of the Apostasy has some fun with Joan Chittister's Ticking Time Bomb of Lay Involvement.

Joan connects the dots between weapons of mass destruction and lay people rebelling against the teachings of the Church since the Second Vatican Council.

Joan tells of how readers of hers ran into a priest who mentored a newly ordained priest:


Now we are dealing with another kind of time bomb. This one’s in the church. Few noticed when this one was planted either. Few people saw the power in it.
In the revised Code of Canon Law that followed Vatican II, someone planted what, at that time, read like a welcome invitation -- an openness to participation by the laity in the organizational development of the church. Little was made of the statement and little expected to come from it.
Canon 212 gave laity “the right and the responsibility” to make known to their pastors their needs. It was a bell waiting to be rung. In fact the bell went off in my mail a couple of weeks ago.
As I understand the situation, the local pastor of a parish in Santa Fe, N.M., gave an enthusiastic homily on the importance to the church of a recent ordination in the diocese. Then he ended his remarks by reporting to the congregation his own advice to the newly-ordained.
“I told him to remember that his duty was to serve God,” the pastor said, “not the people.”

Horrified by the idea that you cannot serve God and mammon,  Canon 212 immediately 'exploded' in the heads of Joan's followers. Laity has the right and responsibility to let the pastor know of their needs.

They went home to fire off quite an interesting list indeed.

Sound teaching, homilies that inspire repentance, availability of the Sacrament of Confession and Eucharist, Adoration, the safety of children, you ask?

Not to the Second Vatican Council Code Crackers.  You'll find the list here that she says quotes with a little advice she calls to 'seminarians attention'.

The list is not only an impressive one but it is a realistic one. In fact, I realized as I read it that it describes a great number of the great priests among us who have held the church together this last 50 years -- in a time of major transition -- by both enabling its growth and revering its traditions in new and creative ways. It says clearly to the newly-ordained: “We don’t need to have you go back; we need to have you go on......The number of lay people who, after Vatican II and at their own expense, got degrees in theology, liturgy, Scripture and canon law -- and wrote letters like this one to their pastors -- are clear evidence of their commitment to the church....tick, tick, tick
Read what Larry has to say.

I'll give you a little bait:


If the Catholycs are IED's, then she'd better hold onto her Birkenstocks and polyester pants, because the faithful, orthodox Catholics are a neutron bomb waiting to go off. 

Enjoy.

All Glory is Fleeting

The Massachusetts priest that stalked Conan O'Brien is back in the news, accused of stalking local newsman he believed was working on a story about him to 'give him his side of the story'.

After receiving disturbing letters from Ajamian, the newscaster got a protection order which Ajemian promptly brought it to the police station saying he wanted to be arrested so he could be interviewed by the television personality.  He told police he'd spent the day in town eating and taking some walks around town in an effort to find him, got a room at a local hotel and went to the police station because his search was coming up empty.


After police told him to go home, Ajemian later called 911, saying he had found Everett’s house and was going to visit him at noon the next day. Police arrested Ajemian in Cohasset on Thursday.
At his arraignment yesterday in Quincy District Court, Ajemian pleaded not guilty to violating the order and was sent to the Solomon Carter Fuller Mental Health Center in Boston until his Dec. 8 court date.
During the court proceedings, a doctor said Ajemian was a Harvard-educated, “extremely bright” man who had a long history of mental illness and had been off his medications for two weeks.
God help him.

There's something chilling about the picture of Fr. Ajemian.  I wanted to blog about the story because on its face value (having nothing to do with the particular situation), the picture reminded me of the consequence of misguidance that has brought a generation to abandon repentance and the use of the Sacrament of Confession, prayers casting out demons,  sacramentals and the rite of exorcism.

Several readers and commenters have asked me to write thoughts about Mark Mallet's recent post So Little Time Left and I wanted to get this post up.

These are very interesting times for sure.   The confusion and confused whipping up the frenzies, the spiritual armies seems to me to be taking victims at greater speed and with greater force on both sides.

The darkness on the left and the light on the right is causing the people living in the gray to head towards their destinations with a little more bounce in their step.    The people firmly planted in the gray are making a lot of noise because their crowd is thinning out.  These are certainly the times and opportunities to influence people who have been led to the gray.   I see people teetering.  People falling.   People attacking truth with more vigor.  I also see more people speaking the truth with more purpose and zeal.

Something spiritual is taking place.

Strictly speaking in the world of Catholicism (because it's my only area of expertise), most of the people sucked into the guidance of rebellion against God are sucked in by priests and Bishops teaching free will is some kind of a spiritual force of its own (nonsense).

 The Jesuits in control of our teaching facilities have led millions (or more likely billions) to their spiritual deaths.  The Bernadin crowd, the Commonweal crowd, Vox Nova crowd, National Catholic Reporter crowd, America Magazine crowd have all been sucked into the vacuum. I think we need to be very aware of the spiritual battles around us because we are going to need every tool we have at our disposal.  I see apostolates that were formerly faithfully leading souls to salvation falling into the hands of those who are in error and the opposite is also true.

 There are forces behind the battle waging on each side to collect as many souls as possible.

Catholics are very open to understanding how prayer, worship and abandonment of our own wills to hear the guidance of angelic forces actually empower them and enable them to work in our lives and in the lives around us.  But there's been an avoidance of Catholic teaching on how the parallel work of demonic forces actually operate in the exact same ways.    The Bishops seem aware of what is going on too as for the first time in who knows how long, they are looking into beefing up exorcisms.

I think we should tune up on it, so here are my thoughts:

There is a commander of each spiritual and powerful army of spirits, God commands the angelic and the devil commands the demonic.    These forces are really powerless in our lives unless we empower them in some way.

God has given each of us control through free will.  Free will is a complicated subject but for the purposes of this post, I'll limit it to the license to control our own intellect and spirit to either surrender them to God and His army, knowing we are severely limited to understand what is best for us  - like Christ and Mary, or we choose the path of Adam and Eve - accepting the temptation to live our lives pursuing advice and counsel elsewhere because our intellects are limited to understand and know why what we want to do, or have the desire to do, is not good for us and the surrender to God just isn't good enough.


Under the command of God, angelic forces can be concentrated in a particular place.   A Sanctuary, holy ground, a particular place or city our country where many souls have been praying and empowering them.   They are limited to act when based upon how much we have surrendered our will to the Father, whether we are in a state of grace or immersed in weakness or sin.   When many are gathered who are in a state of grace, there is a concentration of angelic forces.

Catholics for the most part get that angelic forces don't 'possess' us.   We are in possession of our own spirits and intellects though there are moments of willfull surrender when they can have more influence over what we say and do.    Christ's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity can be a guest in our souls if we are in a state of grace.

More or less of His Presence can reside in our immortal souls but that Presence offers us the ability to rest our spirit in Him so He can act with and through us but God retains the possession of His Divinity.    With Saints there is a mystical fusion.  The person does not become God or an Angel but the manifestations of the fusion are present.

Alternately, the hierarchy of demonic forces work mirror this empowerment.   There are people who worship and make sacrifices to the devil (which is actually the opposing force of the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass).  There are people in various identity crises who get roped into it through peers.  Most of them don't realize what they're doing because the occult has been neutralized and in some cases made cutesy in a Harry Potter kind of way.  (btw - Learning where Harry Potter has led its main actor,  a horses ass, selling the drunken hogwart occult and sex culture as a benign influence has lost all merit.)   Nevertheless, occult practices can empower forces that concentrate in a particular locus for a particular reason.  They can surround a person, be more concentrated in a home, school, diocese.  Sometimes, there is a fusion.  The person does not become the devil but manifestations of the fusion are present.

To people attune to the spiritual world, they hang in air like bad smell when they're in play in a situation or person or place.

Of particular interest to me have been interactions during the battle (and ultimately the stunning victory) over the USCCB have been the people who don't see things from the perspective of a battle for souls but rather a battle of dueling political philosophies.  The fatal wound to the political and cultural control they have had over the USCCB is causing them to lash out with such venom and with irrational arguments, they are impossible to believe if you are a lover of truth and justice.  Frankly, it is so outlandish, it seems to me to be more than something mortal going on.

Their messiah and cultural warrior has fallen and he can't get up.  They are so blinded, they put Nancy Pelosi right back as their fearless leader. No matter who wins or losses on the political level, the Bishops have just signaled that the battle for the soul of the Church has split of from their trajectory.

Two quotes come to mind - one from General Patton~

For over a thousand years, Roman conquerors returning from the wars enjoyed the honor of a triumph - a tumultuous parade. In the procession came trumpeters and musicians and strange animals from the conquered territories, together with carts laden with treasure and captured armaments. The conqueror rode in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before him. Sometimes his children, robed in white, stood with him in the chariot, or rode the trace horses. A slave stood behind the conqueror, holding a golden crown, and whispering in his ear a warning: that all glory is fleeting. 

The other from Pope John Paul II~


"Do not be afraid. 

Do not be satisfied with mediocrity. 
Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch." 

Two different battles that can sometimes merge but if our hearts lose sight of the ultimate objective of our purpose here on earth, anything else we are doing was a battle for the glorification of our own egos.   



Keep the focus.   Choose well.

Raymond Cardinal Burke

Thursday, November 18, 2010

A Message for the Mamy Pamby Crowd

Interesting Day Post Mortem

I'm still trying to process the backlash from the detractors and the fantastic round ups of bloggers.

On the one hand we have dissenters who have been using Cardinal Bernadin's diaper for 40 years to undermine the seriousness of killing infants who are behaving rather badly.

I don't want to get specific, but I had an exchange with somebody whose name rhymes with Snarlson where we were characterized as disobedient ecclesial campaigning crowing pride-filled egotistical superior mocking sedevanasit gossip slandering mongerers lacking humility and taking credit for what happened.  Satan prevails in the Church sometimes and we are confusing pollitical rehtoric for religious sentiment and politically smearing and dragging bishops through the mud.   But the worst part was his contemptible mischaracterization of Bp. Dolan as having the same poor judgment as Bp. Kicanas when it comes to sexual abusers.

I can't tell whether prudence was thrown out the window when I invited him to be tarred and feathered and thrown under the bus or when I called his sore looser attack on Bishop Dolan despicable.  Why doesn't Henry just put on the proabortion and sexual immoralikty sash and be done with the intellectual dishonesty.   Have convictions and be a man about them instead of hiding your dissent behind these silly tortured campaigns to try to shut people up who are whistleblowing about internal corruption.

It has got to go.

Don't miss MSW.  It is a must read for those of us in Boston who have been building the whistleblowing Church Militant crusade.

There is one other aspect of the story that I alluded to yesterday and which was confirmed for me by several bishops. The attacks on Bishop Kicanas in the last week before the election worked. These attacks focused on Kicanas’ service as a seminary rector, when he recommended for orders a man who went on to be a child molester. Kicanas had answered the charges at the time and there was nothing to them, but on the eve of the election, when the CNN ticker had an item about “Top bishop denies promoting child molester,” I knew there was trouble for Kicanas. Survivors’ groups unwittingly did the bidding of the most conservative bishops by joining in the attacks. If that were not enough, the gay activists in the Rainbow Sash movement sealed Kicanas’ fate when they “endorsed” him, a classic case of failing to anticipate the opposition. Still, I had anticipated there might be a sympathy backlash for Kicanas, not least because – whatever the bishops intended – some on the right now think they possess a “heckler’s veto” over USCCB elections. Throw enough mud at the last minute, and they can stop someone they do not like from winning. They sent text messages to bishops. They called the bishops’ rooms at the hotel. It was ugly. But, no bishop wanted to return to his diocese and be pummeled with questions about Kicanas’ treatment of a sexual abuser. There was enough smoke to suggest a fire, and the bishops have no desire to be burned on that score anymore.

Someone we don't like...for no good reason.   (rolling eyes)

Pardon me, but aren't these the people who wanted to lay people to be more vocal and Bishops more responsive and who just spent the last ten years whining about pedophile enablers?

Congratulations.  The chicken has come home to roost.

Like everyone else, I found the Rainbow Sash statement fascinating.   Note they mention a 'hard right' toward...the Republican party and Tea Party.  Evidently, the Pope is no longer even in the picture to the picture to them. I will say one thing for them - they at least have the decency to be honest and forthright about their convictions.

Here's Grant Gallicho's end game:


I wonder whether Rainbow Sashers knew exactly what they were doing, and are happy to use Kicanas’s loss to raise awareness–and money.
But what about the rest? Text messages? Phone calls to bishops’ hotel rooms? The attacks from conservatives may not have been the only thing that torpedoed his candidacy, but do the bishops who voted against Kicanas because of that smear campaign recognize they just caved in to the swiftboating of a brother bishop–and it could happen to them?


Everyone I think saw what happened to Cardinal Law and are acutely aware that dissenters have had them by the spines.  What happened was when orthodox Catholics also rose to hold them accountable, they had nothing left to loose and they simply just did the right thing.

Catholic World Report has a fabulous piece about the unraveling of the seamless garment which our friends from BHE have posted with commentary HERE.

The media casts Kicanas’ defeat and Dolan’s win as a “traditionalist” victory. But that is overstating it. For one thing, Dolan—though he sees himself walking in the footsteps of John O’Connor—is far from a confrontational conservative. According to the media’s telling, the “moderate” lost and the “conservative” won. But it is more accurate to say that the moderate won and the liberal lost. In reality, the immediate outcome of the USCCB election has to do primarily with the slow unraveling of the “Seamless Garment” and the aftershocks of the abuse scandal. Bernardin’s dream of the USCCB as a Vatican-resistant body of progressive political opinions was simply overtaken by the nightmare of clerical corruption.

BTW - do not miss the spectacular BHE trip down memory lane that notes the devastating effects of the Bernadin/Hehir seamless garment.

There are many who will try to tell you that Bernadin meant well by defining the failure to shut lights off in your home to save energy or littering on the same level of seriousness as executing unborn children in the womb.  I don't buy into it.  The fruit of the tree is just too rotten.  It was long past time to take the ax to the root

Speaking of which - do check out our blogging friend Tim who is working on an unfaithful schools blog.  He's got some reading on Boston College that is quite informative.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

The Earthquake in Baltimore

This is a nice round up by Rachel Zoll of AP -

Bishop Dolan Elected in Upset.

New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan was elected president Tuesday of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in a surprise win that underscored the bishops' shift toward a more aggressive defense of orthodoxy.
Kicanas was pilloried in the days leading up to the vote by conservative Catholic bloggers, who urged readers to send protest faxes and leave messages for bishops at the Baltimore hotel where they are meeting.
There is nothing like open public documentation to Bishops that states the scandal, asks them do the right thing, is backed up by blogochatter and articles written by activists and the prayers of the people, the Communion of Saints and souls in Heaven and purgatory.  It is a winning combination and one that we intend on carrying forward with other scandals going on right here in the Archdiocese of Boston.  (Next on my radar are the structure changes that moved power away from the Archbishop and the first policy being written by counterfeit operation in power in the Boston Chancery - "non-discrimination policy" at Catholic schools - brace yourselves)

Lots of hands went into this - kudos to everyone for answering the call to serve the Lord to work towards the dramatic turn around of the USCCB.

The Bishops heard our pleas and responded.   This is an absolute change in the wind for Church Militant.

The good old boy network that gave absolute assurances to internal protocol for the first time in 40 years was broken up.

What happened today is huge in so many ways.

Theology will be impacted, education, direction on the best way to serve God's people in political activism, including the 2010 election.

There are calls for a more unified voice, building on the work that Cardinal George began three years ago.

Here's the quid pro quo - Archbishop Kurtz was elected as VP.   Here's his thoughts on Summorum Pontificum.      Here he is at an abortion clinic.

Here's some thoughts one of the patrons of Commonweal left relating to her experiences over the Liturgy:


Some here have wondered what ideological position Kurtz might occupy, or what sort of a mind he has. Let me offer one illustrative ancedote. When he was pastor of a parish in the Diocese of Allentown, he invited me to give a workshop for his liturgical ministers. The next day he phoned to complain that my presentation had not been sufficiently doctrinal. What was wrong? I had referred to the Eucharist as the Bread of Life and the Cup of Salvation.


Any more questions?

And, best of all, Archbishop Chaput is poised to be next in the machine.

I know some Catholics in conservative quarters have some reservations about Ab Dolan because he (disappointingly) has circumvented the Church's call of the Prodigal Father (Canon 925) and there was disappointing participation at a parish where moral theology on human sexuality is being twisted into Masses celebrating their booty calls.  I saw the video of that and I was not too pleased myself -- but you've got to remember that Ab. Dolan signed the Manhattan Declaration.   He is a solid prolifer and has spoken out courageously about politicians and abortion.   I believe we scored on this one.


Dolan has been a strong friend and ally and has been called a “hero” by leading pro-life advocates in part for speaking out about Catholic politicians who support abortion.
“It bothers me if any politician, Catholic or not, is for abortion,” Dolan has said. “Because in my mind, we’re talking about a civil right, we’re not talking about a matter of Catholic Church discipline. We can’t allow the noble pro-life cause to be reduced to a denominational issue.”
In 2008, Dolan took House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice-President Joe Biden to task for misrepresenting Catholic pro-life teachings.
“Church tradition is equally clear that bishops are the authentic teachers of the faith. So, when prominent Catholics publicly misrepresent timeless Church doctrine – as Biden and Pelosi regrettably did (to say nothing of erring in biology!) – a bishop has the duty to clarify,” he explained.


Big.  Huge.  Gargantuan.

The Roman Catholic Church in the United States has just freed up from the chains of the immorality of Bernadin's 40 year reign of terror.

Feel the momentum.

We've had enough of exhortations to be silent"! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world has become rotten because of silence."  ~ St. Catherine of Siena

And He shall reign for ever and ever.   Hallelujah.