I Desire Mercy - UPDATED

The ongoing discussions about Rachel Zoll's article have flushed out publicly the thrust of the theological problems we have been facing inside of our parishes, schools and community.

Discussion with Elizabeth Scalia sheds decent light on the counterfeit church being erected.  The theology she is using to warehouse her gig is "I desire Mercy", from St Faustina.   I wanted to dissect it so we can be armed for future discussion.

So you'd have to believe that Scalia, who desires mercy, picked up the article written by Zoll and draws the conclusion she needs to tell the world that Zoll is a bigot.

For the record, Zoll is not a bigot.  She in fact expressed to me that as a religion reporter, she is reading with interest and has has gained more perspective on orthodox Catholics and this has been an insightful and pleasant experience.

Scalia, completely out of tune with the spirit of the article, decides she's going to give her readers her judgment call about Zoll and the new breed of nasty, hateful Catholics who want their religion taught to them.

While trying to explain to Elizabeth Scalia that her clouded judgment is inciting the malice against Christ's Church that is intimidating people into proclaiming the teachings, she said that wasn't her intention but she was standing by her words.

Yes, there are a handful of extreme Catholic bloggers to whom Jesus might say, “But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy. . .’.”

And, because they are extreme types, they will each assume that that line is meant for the “others”—

the ones against whom they burnish the swords of righteousness; the ones they lampoon, often, unto snotty incoherence"

That one line from St. Faustina can get played over and over in some heads.  But lampooning innocent people and their intentions to make Christ's Church and Her teachings look like hateful things said by nasty people  isn't exactly what St. Faustina was talking about.    It is taking away the teachings that inspire us to seek the Sacrament of Confession and the Divine Mercy St Faustina was talking about.   This is why the Sacrament of Confession is an essential part of the feast day of Divine Mercy when we granted indulgences and Divine Mercy.     You won't be seeing people Elizabeth Scalia is spiritually forming lined up on Divine Mercy Sunday because they are instead going to her to get kindness.  

Elizabeth wants to emulate kindness, humility and gentleness and we need this spirituality in the Church.   Each of us is animated with gifts we are perfected and sponsored and prayed for by great Saints who had these gifts when they were alive and served Christ's Church with them.

None of us are perfect with these gifts, she admits, but she wants everybody to have the same gifts she is perfecting and mocks others

There are also many great Saints who carried swords.  The next time you run into a Bush basher, remind them that St. Joan of Arc not only carried a sword, she led an army of people who lampooned people with them in a thing called just war.   People who use mercy as the symbol of their spirituality ought not to be mocking other Catholics whose gifts and symbols of those gifts are not the same as her own.

What St. Faustina meant by "I desire Mercy", was Christ's reminder that in our personal lives, when people malign, insult and hurt us,  we apply the virtue of "charity" to nurture mercy in our heart.

If you read the thread, you will see a comment by "Bender" that really demonstrates how backwards the unsound theology is.

In the scenario they are proposing, "wrong lessons" are taught to our children and "right lessons" are withheld from the person espousing the "wrong lessons". This leaves both people in these circumstances ignorant of the truth.   What is astounding to me is that they see this as the sign that they are doing God's work. This is impossible.

Maybe a little parable will help put things into better perspective.

There was once was a father who taught his children and his servants the moral theology of the Catholic Church. He brought his children to Our Lady of the Puppets because it said "Catholic Church" and it was animated with lively music and entertainment for teenagers.  He sent them to CCD where they learned the teachings of the Church are antiquated.  Everyone has sex as teenagers and if they need condoms or an abortion their god desires mercy so call 1-800-Caritas Christi or Partner's Health Care and the Cardinal and Jack Connors will fix you right up.  They helped many people at Our Lady of the Puppets to understand that they can vote for people who legislate abortions.   They desire mercy.  His eldest son, let's call him Prodigal, started visiting the local brothel, being licentious, drinking, partying, etc.   The other children in the house started to wonder if this was okay and thinking it looked like fun.  After repeating moral laws of God, the son was getting madder and madder at his father.

There was another 'family' who lived next door who was always out in the public square saying this man was mean old snooty curmudgeon.  Other people in town started being mean to the father.   Prodigal loved the woman next door.  She was so kind, he thought.  Prodigal kept comparing this woman to her own father.  Prodigal grew angrier and angrier at his own father until finally one day he did not want to hear what he was doing was wrong and left his father's house.

The woman next store was wild.  She went to the local church and gossiped about how the father purged Prodigal from his own house.   She tarred and feathered the father until he was no longer welcome in his community.  There is no joy and love in people like this, she told everyone in cyberspace.   Other parents who also teach their children the morals of the Catholic Church were afraid to say anything because the woman had influence and they did not want to be tarred and feathered like the father at Our Lady of the Puppets.  

One day the priest at Our Lady of the Puppets was transferred and the new priest was all fired up for leading souls to the Sacrament of Confession and Divine Mercy St. Faustina was talking about.  He dusted off the Catechism started teaching the people moral theology in it and about Humanae Vitae and about God's Mercy in the Sacrament of Confession helps us to amend our lives and be better prepared to understand the truth when it is spoken to us because it awakens our consciences.    Father noticed more and more people asking him for the Sacrament of Confession.  He was pleased.  But the woman was very upset with Father and told everyone in the parish that father was cold-hearted snotty extremist and he has to learn the meaning of  "I desire mercy".   The more and more the woman complained about Father, the mobs in the pews started swearing at him and telling him they were not going to give him any more money.   The mobs called the local Bishop, lets call him Cardinal Spineless, and telling him they were not going to give any more money to the Cardinal's Appeal.  Cardinal Spineless and his chancery bureaucrats told Father that he couldn't teach that kind of stuff anymore but to teach people how to rely on the woman for kindness.

People stopped coming to church because they can be kind in the grocery clerk and they can be kind to trees and plants.     They hung quarts around their necks for energy and power and they drew circles in their yard and walked around in circles thinking about the peace they are creating on the planet and how Jesus must be so pleased with them.

They link to the faith of Stephen Colbert and John Lennon.  

Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.  Nothing to kill or die for and no religion too.  No need for greed or hunger.  A brotherhood of man.   You may say they're dreamers.  But they're not the only ones.  They hope some day you'll join them and the world will live as one. 

They didn't intend to whip up malice to shut people up and they don't know how that all happened.  They're just trying to be nice and the father of Prodigal and the priest who teaches the Catechism who is making people hate the teachings of Christ's Church and keeping them away from the mercy of the women at church. 

See anything familiar with Elizabeth's Scalia idea of "I desire mercy"?

The prodigals are being keeping from conversion by whipping up a frenzy against our priests and prophets.    They have replaced God in the hearts of His people.

Elizabeth and others seem to think we are trying to get them to go back on their 'words'.  They think we are upset and angry and have hurt feelings about the names they are calling us.   That used to work so well.

But they better pull out the Book of Revelation to see where it's going.   We no longer have attachment to whether they accept or reject what we are saying or ridicule or mock or slander.  We're doing it because our eyes on on Our Beloved.

n.b.  Before anyone reads the parable and sucks on their charity crack pipes starts to throw around slanderous assertions about my children - for the record - all of them have done none of the things described in the story of the prodigal.  I was referencing the story in the Bible.       Your poor judgment has caused enough people anguish, especially Our Lord.

Good day to you, ma'am.

Purging from One's Own Petard

I have read with much interest the reactions to Rachel Zoll's AP Article describing the new breed of theological conservatives who are finished tolerating dissent and corruption in the Catholic Church in America.

Before  I talk about the reactions I wanted to go on record about the author, Rachel Zoll.   I found Rachel to be a very gracious young lady who was genuinely interested in what we were doing from the perspective of an objective journalist.

The article was originally named Catholic Loyalists Take to Their Blogs to Defend Teachings.

The first time I saw anything about 'purging dissenters' was when our detractors on Morrissey Boulevard (The Boston Globe) posted the article.

I expected the article would bring anti-Catholicism, which I assume was the Globe's intention.

Still, the vitriol of the bigots posting on MSNBC and the Blaze was surprising.   As crusader extrordinare Jack O'Malley pointed out somewhere in blogosphere, what people think about our religion is none of our business.  I certainly don't give a flying fig and you shouldn't either.  It should be noted and exposed - but this is the beauty of diversity.

Fr. Z, while being pleased righteousness in the panegyry is in high gear, was not pleased with the tenor of the article.  I've never disagreed with Father Z's theology and seldom disagree with his observations. Perhaps being on the ground in Boston has jaded my perspective, but  I see this article differently than Fr. Z.


Nobody wants to 'purge' people from the Catholic Church. I will say that depending upon the circumstances, if charitable attempts to come to the solution have been railroaded,  it is righteous to escalate the situation  to removing the person from teaching and governance roles.


Any attempt to do this over the last few decades has been met with various kinds of internal pandemonium and terror.  The push backs have been successful in driving us out of our own parishes and schools.   I hope those doing so have enjoyed the cowardice and inertia because those days are behind us now. 


Let's get to the reactions.


A few doses of the kind of anti-Catholicism and bigotry that is out there:  MSNBC and the Blaze.  

After not faring well in the theological discussion, the Commonweal crowd shut down the discussion.

Over at America Magazine, James Martin is a chronic abuser of deleting comments of people who espouse Roman Catholic translations of teaching.  Martin's trousers get all twisted up in a knot when he finds out the days ahead of him are going to be a right back atcha.

Helllllllloooooooooo hypocrisy?  Is that you dear?   Speak up, I can't hear you.

Before I say anything else, I'd like to (once again) classify exactly what it is we are doing.

The freedom to teach our own religion in our own Catholic schools and parishes has been under siege for a very long time.  Many of us have been parish hopping for at least a decade to avoid having our children scandalized and spiritually abused.

Shall I spell out the consequences of having a lay person, priest or Bishop give a teaching or governance position to a person andand have that person tell our children that the teachings of the Church on human sexuality, contraception, abortion, drinking, drugs is antiquated?   The culture of everyone is doing it so do it, just do it safely?


Cheap sex has replaced human intimacy and has alienated Divine intimacy.  Sacramental grace is held hostage.   There is depression, low-self esteem and self-worth, drugs, alcohol.  There is breast cancer from abortions & the hormones they are giving naive women to give irresponsible men license to jump from bed to bed.

Most important of all, for Catholics, these abuses have put our children's salvation at risk.

There is a protocol and process for Catholics to follow when you (or your children) are victims of error, scandal and corruption.

We assume the goodwill of the person and point out the error.  If that doesn't help, we go to the priest in charge.  As we are rebuked or dismissed, we take it to the Vicar Forane (an appointed pastor in a locus who is supposed to be the next level in the heirarchy).  Next comes the auxiliary bishop, then the archbishop or Cardinal of the region.   If all of these people fail or refuse to correct the situation, you go to the Nuncio.  Then whatever dicastry in the Holy See the problem falls under.

We don't expect the Holy See to act upon every spiritual abuser but when you have a Bishop who has let his diocese get out of control (as it is here in Boston), the idea is to let them see how extensive the problem is and how many souls are being sacrificed and it is reasonable to expect them to act.

But, the reality is, they don't.  For all the hooey and talk about how sorry they are, there is no system in place to holding corrupt accountable.  It is the same good old boy network it always has been.

What does work, is when you take your problem into the public square and expose their misfeasance, cronyism.

St. Paul gives us the instruction to testify openly when you have exhausted all other options so that other people steer themselves and their children away from being abused.

This is what the new breed of bloggers on the internet is doing.  We are going through the system and when we have failed at getting help for the people being abused, we are exposing what is going on in Boston.

There is a dysfunction among lay Catholics who try to make something sinister out of any attempt to expose abuse and remove somebody who is abusing somebody else.  This same "enabling" dynamic is the reason pedophiles thrived for so many years. There is a code of silence and if you break it, there is a certain breed of Catholics who will turn against you.     Knowing you will be thrown to the wolves keeps most Catholics silent.   It is a spiritual sickness  -- the mentality of cult.

I've talked about it before but it has reared its ugly head again and I think it is important to take a new refreshing approach - talking openly about it.

It is one thing to have the Boston Globe take what you're doing and mischaracterize it to incite a riot.  When Catholics do it, and Catholics who portray themselves as examples of fidelity to follow, we have to start talking about the consequences of this unspoken policy.

The bad news is, these two well known apostolates  HERE and HERE were invloved in this recent example.


Here are the rules to apostolate #1.

We want to host a constructive but civil discussion among mature adults. With that in mind: 

1. No name calling or personal attacks; stick to the argument, not the individual. 

2. Assume the goodwill of the other person, especially when you disagree. 

3. Don't make judgments about the other person's sinfulness or salvation. You are not the Inquisition. 

4. Within reason, stick to the topic of the thread; no conversation hijackers, please. 

5. Encouraging or threatening violence against anyone will get you banned immediately. 

6. If you don't agree to the rules, don't post. 

We reserve the right to block or edit (tone, not content) any posts that violate our usage rules. And we will freely ban any commenters unwilling to abide by them.


Isn't blocking or banning actually a.....um...how do you say....... purging?


Would it be fair to say that in general poor Rachel Zoll didn't get the benefit of the assumption of good will?   Look, I am not naive when secular press wants to do a story on Catholics.  The AP story was in the works for a couple of weeks and when I got the heads-up that it was going out on the wire, I told the Boston blogging community here's hoping we won't need to retreat to the bunker stocked with Raemen noodles.  But when an article goes to press, I give the journalist the benefit of the doubt.  We were aactually very happy with the article here in Boston.


Further, do these comments "assume the good will" of parents who are no longer willing to sweep spiritual abuse under the cult carpets?:

there are always going to be people who go to extremes...

Certainly there are bloggers out there who do see conspiracies in every chancery... 

and I don't necessarily agree with some of the approaches described in the article...

the article goes too far in lumping together a wide range of conservative/traditional/right-wing/insert-adjective-here bloggers under this shady "new breed" banner. You can find extremists everywhere...

What is personally upsetting to this right wing insert adjective shady extremist hallucinating about conspiracies in every chancery, is that when this same apostolate was under attack several years back on the internet,  I spent a great deal of effort talking donors in off the ledge - and I mean big donors.     I also talked high ranking Catholics out of throwing them under the bus.  One day when I said things like linking Commonweal, the National Catholic Destroyer and other unsound things on the internet will lead people who are not in a state of grace to be further entrenched in their errors, I got a ride on a shoe!


I found out the hard way that there is some kind of secret list that "mature" or "civilized" people aren't allowed to talk about while your own apostolate has the mission of steering people away from spiritual error.


I would like to "insert" an "adjective" about how screwed up this is but I am too lady-like to say it.


Blogging is not always an exact science.   In   Boston, when planning strategy, or if we see something one of us has written or is doing, we talk to each other about it and each of us knows with 100% conviction that as flawed human beings we want to avoid hurting our Beloved and His Church, or our own souls, at all cost.  There is no contest of ego or implied threats that criticism will cost you a personal relationship or you may wind up going under the bus publicly in Christendom for it.  


Deal Hudson has been very supportive and helpful to our mission here.  He knows we have exhausted all avenues to rooting out spiritual abuse and we are doing what we have to do to get the Bishop to respond.  There are many great writers and works at the apostolate in question and I link to those frequently.  I bear no ill will.


But boy oh boy, women can sure be bitches.  


I asked one of our militants yesterday to spend some time stamping out  the fires of people who are getting caught up in the mischaracterizations of what we are doing and why.    


The other apostolate linked above resorted to another famous trick of Catholics who believe it is charity to leave children in the hands of spiritual abusers:  Accusing the poster of slander, threatening litigation but removing the post so that others can  not make a judgement.  She then goes on to explain that she is to be referred to as "Ma'am" or "fathead", etiquette the poster was unaware of, and this blogger went ahead and "purged"  her from further posting.


I am posting excerpts of her screeds that she claims are humble lessons in the spirit of Jesus on how not to caricature and mischaracterize people and their intentions.


She says one thing Zoll had going for her, was the likening of John Allen's characterization  of what we are doing as murdering terrorists.


See what you think about the rest of her humble observations:

Here's the humble picture she posted:

  

No purges in the family.

In fairness to Zoll, she did quote John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, who seems sympathetic to the portrait—it was he who invented the term “Taliban Catholicism”—but also mentioned that “liberals can fit the mindset, too . . . [S]ome left-leaning Catholics are outraged by any exercise of church authority.”

Caricature can be cruel—it is the bigot’s most-effective weapon—but it only works when the cartoon retains some recognizable elements of the subject, which, sadly, it does here.

So, it seems we have a Catholic blogosphere riddled with vengeful self-appointed guardians and the anti-authority raspberry-blowers who call names and make faces at them. Zoll’s piece borders on caricature, but we should think seriously about it, because it marks the state of the Body of Christ, and not becomingly...

We add to the broken body of Christ when we try to judge who is the “better sort” of Catholic, or who is doing damage to that body. We all do impressive jobs of bringing “scandal” to the church by our very passionate need to see things “made right” (as we see it) and by the ways in which we indict each other’s imperfections.

I acknowledge that one can occasionally “write mad” and deliver a bit more zing than one has meant to, although I personally have never gone after other bloggers pronouncing who should “stay” and who should “go,” which is what the gist of my piece is about. Determining the state of someone else’s soul is none of my business, and I’m not interested in going there...

Yes, there are extreme Catholic bloggers, “progressive” and “conservative,” who tread recklessly upon their fellow Catholics, and whose motto should read ego usus a blog quod ego sum fortis utor is.Yes, there are a handful of extreme Catholic bloggers to whom Jesus might say, “But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy. . .’.”

And, because they are extreme types, they will each assume that that line is meant for the “others”—the ones against whom they burnish the swords of righteousness; the ones they lampoon, often, unto snotty incoherence.

In fact, the line is meant for every one of us writing in the Catholic blogosphere, for no one manages perfect charity all the time. I am too cognizant of my own failings to believe I have any business drumming anyone else out of the church and I would venture that most Catholic bloggers, either “progressive” or “conservative,” feel similarly.

We add to the broken body of Christ when we try to judge who is the “better sort” of Catholic, or who is doing damage to that body. We all do impressive jobs of bringing “scandal” to the church by our very passionate need to see things “made right” (as we see it) and by the ways in which we indict each other’s imperfections.

End of excerpts.

Uncle Screwtape eat your heart out.


I posted the following, which she may remove, but I want to have my response on record:

"I  don't read  anything anywhere that accuses you of condoning spiritual abuse but it is clear that you consider the people who want to remove people who spiritually abuse children (or adults for that matter) as 'extremists' who want to 'purge' people and you don't ever want to say who gets to stay and who gets to go.

The rational conclusion of your position is that you believe people who spiritually abuse children and adults should not be removed from their positions. You pick up the mischaracterization of what we are doing and you call it a 'purge'.

You can't have it both ways.

Posting the consequences of your position is not slander.


n.b.   You are also wrong that people have to 'live with', which is more accurately described as 'tolerate' lay people who insist that anything but the status quo of leaving people in place who spiritually abuse Catholics is 'extremist', uncharitable or 'taliban'.

What the new breed of theological bloggers is saying and in fact doing, is when lay people, priests or bishops try to characterize a movement to remove people who spiritually abuse others as something uncharitable and sinister - we will lay out the dysfunction and consequences of children of your position.

Call the lawyer or call a holy war upon us, we are done being intimidated by it.

I apologize for being so forthright but I simply don't know how to say it any other way."


Whether you condone abuse or you try to set the tenor that the Catholic religion requires us to leave abusers in their positions doesn't make a dime's worth of difference to people being abused.

A Donnybrook at Commonweal over Catholic Bloggers Aim to Purge Dissenters

The wide circulation of Rachel Zoll's article about the momentum of Catholics rising to ensure Catholics hear authentic Catholic teaching 100% of the time has elicited somewhat of a fascinating response from the Commonweal crowd.

Frankly, I'm a little astounded.

While it comes as no surprise that Commonweal is theologically unsound, I am taken back by their lack of charity,  how frank they are about their opposition to Catholic teaching and their misunderstanding about the purpose of our apostolate.

eugene mccarraher

10/24/2010 - 11:10

“We’re no more engaged in a witch hunt than a doctor excising a cancer is engaged in a witch hunt,” said Michael Voris of RealCatholicTV.com and St. Michael’s Media.

I’m sure that Voris would reassure us that, really and truly, he loves those he’d like to see excised.

We don't want to see people 'excised', we simply want to hand you different material to teach so that those teaching and those being tutored are invited to Paradise.

Isn't it time to stop making what we are doing nefarious?

What we're doing is the purpose of the Catholic Church's existence.

Ann Olivier 

10/24/2010 - 11:38 am

SUBSCRIBER

From the Times article — note the unqualified descriptions of the two camps: “fellow orthodox Catholics”, “the more positive side of the orthodox Catholic blogosphere”, “faithful Catholics”, “unfaithful Catholics”

The acceptance of these terms by the NYT and others as accurate descriptions of conservatives and liberal Catholics needs to be scotched. The basic issue between the two camps is this very question: what IS an orthodox, faithful Catholic...At the very least such conservatives should be called “self-styled orthodox Catholics” or some equivalent term.

Getting hung up on labels here. How about calling us Catholics returning to ensuring what is inside of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is taught to Catholics faithfully?

Cathleen Kaveny

10/24/2010 - 11:41 am

In addition, I think this is related to the “smaller, purer church” debate. Will fine distinctions about what the pope said and didn’t say convince those who have put up a whole blog devoted to attacking Bryan Hehir?.

It also goes to why anyone should stay in the church. I think we can’t avoid the question whether the fine distinctions are merely the fine distinctions of dusty theological books–the church of an educated person in his or her head, but not at all related to what’s on the ground?...

But I don’t think there will be divisions–I think Peter Steinfel’s article shows what will happen–mass exodus.

"It also goes to why anyone should stay in the church..can't avoid the question whether the fine distinctions are merely the fine distinctions of dusty theological books--the church of an educated person in his or her head.."

I responded to Peter Steinfel's article here but it bears repeating in this thread.

Making Catholic Churches places where priests have to keep people away from the teachings of the Church so they can feel good about themselves is the antithesis of the Catholic Church.  It is a complete waste of Christ's Suffering and Death so we could have the Catholic Church and her Sacraments to work towards our salvation.  IF we wanted to.

Holding the 'dusty theological books' and the salvation of the Church hostage with threats by people who say they will flee if we proclaim what is in them is precisely what we have had enough of.

1. Abe Rosenzweig

   
   

   10/24/2010 - 1:21 pm

   It blows my mind that a barely-pubescent brat like Peters draws so much water in Catholic discourse (if that’s an appropriate name for it).

   By the way, “Mark,” I’m not part of the Catholic left, so the snideness, meanness, narrow-mindedness, and intolerance of what I just said is all mine, baby.

This one speaks for itself. They will know they are Christians by their love.

I'm skipping over all the daggers drawn against a list of Catholics who want the Catechism taught.

Along with other uncharitable remarks, apparently Cathleen Kaveny called Amy Welborn a 7th grader, which she promptly removed but not before Welborn got wind of it and responded.  

They seem to have the pins for Wellborn and accuse her of inciting mockery of people who bring human sized puppets, liturgical dance and other liturgical abuses.

Cry me a river.

Generally speaking, they don't much like the airing of abuses of theology, catechesis and our Liturgy and want to figure out how to protect people whose abuses are being highlighted.

Cathleen Kaveny

10/24/2010 - 3:43 pm

.....

In the real world, I don’t think the big problem facing the body of Christ is Ratzinger hermeneutics. And let’s be clear: you’ve not shown positively that Ratzinger doesn’t believe in a smaller purer church, at best you’ve shown that those who think he does believe in it haven’t established their position beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think the big problem is the people who are using “smaller and purer Church” to kick others out. I think the big problem is what is happening to Bryan Hehir and others like him. So I want to convince those attacking Bryan Hehir to stop it.

See this:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-10-20-catholic19_ST_N.htm

And unless Ratzinger himself clearly denies that’s what he meant, I think it is going to keep happening. People will assume that he agrees with his archbishop.

So why won’t he say something? Simple, workaday, solution.

And what do you think should be done to help people like Bryan Hehir?

 Instead of asking the guy to stop teaching error?

They could join the archbishop of Boston in trying to discredit Catholics who are calling out the errors and post an entry about the spectacular contribution to faithful teaching Hehir has made.

As you can imagine, there is nobody scratching their heads about why the Cardinal didn't add links to anything authored by Hehir about the sanctity and truthfulness of Humana Vitae and Evangelium Vitae because there is no such animal.

1. Cathleen Kaveny

   
   

   10/24/2010 - 4:44 pm

   I have no idea, Joe. I don’t live in the real world now. I live under a dome over a cornfield.

   But I admire Bryan Hehir tremendously–he’s not only a brilliant scholar, he’s a very good priest. And people are trying to hurt him. And I think Commonweal Catholics had better figure out how to deal with all of this – because it’s only going to get worse, for the reasons David enumerated.

   King Lear–that didn’t end real well, did it?

You can take to the bank it is going to get worse....before it gets better!

The donnybrook has begun in the pews and we are not going to stop until the unsound teachings do.  If the people teaching unsoundly want to be thrown out with the dirty bathwater, it's sad, but free will is a beautiful thing.

Here's a post of interest.

1. 
   

   Tracy Fenton

   
   

   10/24/2010 - 4:57 pm

   Dude, I thought it was the bishops of the US who said voting for a pro-choice candidate was not a great thing for a Catholic, not some blogger.

   Chaput, Burke….Wenski…Morlino (is that his name?). George. Dolan. Right? The USCCB?

   Anyway, I am loving this.

   Looking at Fr. Bryan Hehir – his words and deeds, not his “lifestyle” or whatever – is bad.

   Michael Sean Winters “exposing” Uber Capitalist Fr. Acton Insitute’s past (repented of) is good and not destructive.

   You guys make a living and a reputation from telling people to ignore the bishops you don’t like and then when the right does the same thing, you pull the civility card. Nothing new there. Move along.

It's not such a bad idea to gather up a nice long index of faithful Catholics the National Catholic Reporter/Commonweal/Vox Nova crowd has "exposed".     I think that would be quite a startling expose of the damage unfaithful Catholics are doing to people who want the teachings of the Church proclaimed.

They are shocked, shocked I tell you that the days of inertia are behind us.

Maybe they thought by taking us down one by one, we would all be intimidated.

1. Joseph Jaglowicz 

   
   

   10/24/2010 - 5:59 pm

   
   

   SUBSCRIBER

   I suspect most Catholics, churchgoing or not, do not pay attention to the blogosphere.

   On the other hand, I think it’s true that Catholic blogs on the right have generally been more influential in capturing the bishops’ attention, whether to chastise them or to support them. “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” The generally conservative and, in certain quarters, reactionary character of various JPII bishops can guarantee a favorable reception to these conservative blogs.

   On the other hand, most Catholics ignore the bishops, and, but for the influx of Hispanic Catholics in the U.S. church, we’d be seeing a drop in Catholic numbers.

   So conservative bloggers influence (for good or bad, one way or other) the U.S. bishops who themselves are ignored by the Catholics in the pews.

   The mouse that roared?

Well, in case it isn't clear, when priests are unfaithful to doctrine, most of them are going to cave when we start sending moles in to record their antics.  No matter where Bishops are in faithfulness to doctrine, most of them are going to cave when we start to publicly record our requests asking them to intercede and counting the days when they don't.

In the end, though it is obvious they do not care about the souls of our children or the flock, they do care about their reputations and money.   All I can say is, let's have a go at it and we'll see how the donnybrook ends.

Finally, all that ever needs to be said about what we are doing is beautifully expressed in a comment on Fr. Z's Blog.

Sorry, but loud voices on the internet, like Michael Voris, our own host, and so many others cannot be silenced by spurious charges of incivility. If a priest or a bishop is teaching heterodoxy, or permitting heterodoxy to flourish, sound him out. Charity sometimes requires the use of harsh terms, and always requires honesty in discourse.

Amen.

If you have not done so already, please get to the TAKE ACTION link at  Bryan Hehir Exposed and fill out the very simple format to fax to Bishop Coleman, the Nuncio, the Holy Father and the Holy See vis-a-vis the sham search for the head Catholic lobbyist for Massachusetts Catholics.

Don't forget to keep up with the latest at Boston Catholic Insider

Further Adrift: Cast Your Nets Into the Deep Water - These are the Days!

Several readers and friends have sent me a story published in Commonweal called "Further Adrift" looking for some feedback.

I'm about as likely to read Commonweal as a treatise on human sexuality written Michael Sean Winters and Joan Chittister would pique my interest and so I thank you for calling this article to my attention.

The article cites that one out of every three baptized Catholics have left the Catholic Church, and cites heterodox priest Thomas Reese characterizing the situation as a disaster.

The irony of this kills me.  This Jesuit who has been misleading the faithful for decades is looking out into the empty seats in the pews and he is oh-so concerned about what happened?

An article written by Deal Hudson featured this week on Inside Catholic put what Reese and his generation of Catholic wreckovators did to the consciousness of this generation into perspective.   It's a book review of a book called "Conversations with God".

All you need to know about the book can be gleaned from its acknowledgments, where he thanks John Denver, "whose songs touch my soul"; Richard Bach, author of that influential epic, Jonathan Livingston Seagull; Barbra Streisand, whose singing causes him "to feel what is true"; and Robert Heinlein, "whose visionary literature has raised questions and posed answers in ways no one else has dared even approach."  [Yes, I swooned over this kind of drivel! - cm]

My most common form of communication is through feeling. Feeling is the language of the soul. If you want to know what's true for you about something, look to how you're feeling about it. . . . hidden in your deepest feelings is your highest truth. [Can anyone say 'divination'?]

If you feel like having sex with your secretary, have it. If you feel like taking birth control, take them.    If two same sex people feel like getting married, let's legalize it. [But then why are polygamists discriminated against?] If teenagers feel like smoking pot, let's decriminalize it.  If teens feel like drinking, let's provide a safe place.  They will feel like having sex, so let's teach them how to do it safely and hand them a condom. [I've never understood why these adults don't provide a safe bedroom with nice clean sheets].  If a woman is attracted to an irresponsible man and gets pregnant, she may feel like killing their unborn child, so let's make it safe for her.  [Why not teach women how the attributes of a responsible man manifest themselves and how to please God by saving herself for him?  The dumbing down of women.]    If Muslims feel like hijacking a plane and driving it into a building full of Americans, do it.  If Muslims feel like putting a victory shrine over the graves of our people, we must let them.   If you're a priest and you feel like having sex with a child, have it.  If you're a Bishop catching pedophiles and you feel like shuffling them to another parish, onward Christian soldier.

Ooops....wait a minute.  

I guess feelings aren't the indicators to right vs. wrong after all.

But, if Christ's Church is not the arbiter of good and evil and the Holy Spirit, who shall be like God?

Why it's Peter Steinfels, of course!

Catholics becoming unaffiliated stressed disagreement with church teachings, both general teachings and church positions on specific issues like abortion, homosexuality, and treatment of women, and to a lesser extent clerical celibacy. In open-ended questioning, they also stressed hypocrisy and other moral and spiritual failures of church leaders and fellow Catholics.

....as well as theologically more complex and controversial matters like expanding the pool of those eligible for ordination and revisiting some aspects of the church’s teaching on sexuality.

People stopped coming to Church because they don't want to hear sex outside of the Sacrament of marriage, birth control, abortion, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery and jealousy are sins.  It makes people feel bad about themselves.

If the Catholic Church would only silence people teaching these things, there will be a stampede back into the pews to received the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Our Lord.

 Priests and lay people imparting knowledge of right from wrong, good from bad, truth from lies are scaring people away from the pews.You are supposed to rope them in.  Meet them where they're at, tell them how good they are no matter what kinds of choices they are making.

Get it?

The fix is in.  The trick is to keep people out of a state of grace. The fruit of sin is a magnet to the Sacraments, holiness and God.

Will they ever get over those three days in Woodstock?

I don't mean to be condescending... but how does this stolid philosophy keep on going?

Could be my stubborn unwillingness to be taken for a fool but I don't understand how anyone could swallow this balderdash.

Was a whole generation deprived of analytical skills?

The impact of sin on a human soul is a natural repellent to Church and God.  There's something about sanctity that makes makes you want to keep your distance when you are on a track of impurity.

For example, a lot of people 'feel' like using the 'f' word in conversation. When people feel like saying the 'f' word, they're going to pass the Church and go to the corner barroom.  So too, when we are doing what is immoral we do not put ourselves in the company of  the Holy Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.  Unless, of course we are ready to repent and amend our lives.   There are some who will of course are sit in the pews that are not there for purification and adoring God.   They are there to feel good about themselves.  That is what priests have turned our parishes into - places to gather in people to feel good about themselves. At the cost of salvation of their souls.   For the most part, people couldn't be bothered.  Like the author of this article, their interest in achievements are about Ivy League schools and their booty in the bank.  This of course makes the Cardinals, Bishops and priests salivate.   It is a feeding frenzy.


How does Seinfels reconcile why the pews were loaded when priests were teaching us sins and we were purifying our souls with the Sacrament of Penance and worthy reception of the Eucharist with his thesis?

The reality is, when Vatican II was used to desensitize people to sin so more people would come to Church, it backfired.

We can trick ourselves into believing all kinds of things that are not real.

I don't have the vantage point of spending decades fermenting in my opposition to the teachings of the Church, so maybe it's me, but I was struck by the absence of lucidity in Seinfels' attempt to pin the empty seats in Church to Pope John Paul II.

He claims that while we were busy following the Vicar of Christ, we didn't notice the millions who were not there.  

But this couldn't be any further than the truth.

When I was being interviewed for this AP article, the journalist noted that the priests who are now in formation are the children of the JPII generation and their faith is solid.  Pope Benedict XVI is convening a consistory to name 24 new Cardinals who will be casting the vote for the next Pope, setting the stage for his successor.  The Bernadin prelates in the US Episcopal Conference are retiring and dying and their replacements were taught by Pope John Paul II.

She asked why orthodox Catholics were rising at this time.

I explained to her that somewhere in between the death of John Paul II and  rising of the secular messiah obama, there was a new attempt on the ground to recalibrate the teachings of the Church to the next generation.  Which happen to be our own children.   Seeing a weak Cardinal, they have set up shop and they are planning to use what they are doing here as a blueprint for the rest of the country.  

Would you let their own children and grandchildren be led into an abyss right in front of you because the Bishops are sanctifying themselves?   Goodie for them.  We are interested in our children.

Zoll also asked how  I felt politics and theology intersect.  The animus that runs the country shapes academia, law and governance.  Everyone wants to influence thought because it creates the kind of world we will pass on to our children.  Catholics have the right and duty to put their two cents in.

The  'fed up' spirit of the 'tea party' movement made its way into theology.

So, while Seinfels sees this:

For some Catholics, this grieving has clearly passed beyond anger. It seems to border now on resignation to either a death of faith or withdrawal from the church.  For others, it means the impossibility of being in any way a “public Catholic,” whether in their fields of work, their communities, their parishes, or their circles of family and friends.

That's not at all what I see, so I guess it all depends on your vantage point.

There is a moment in Christ's ministry when the apostles had been trying to catch fish and every day came ashore with their nets empty.     He gets into Simon (Peter's) boat, they go out a bit into the water and He teaches the people on the shore from the boat.  He tells Simon to lower the nets.  Simon tells Christ that they have been fishing all night and day and couldn't catch anything but lowered the net as Christ wished.  You know how the story ends.

We are casting our nets into the deep.

As they settle into resignation, withdrawal and impossibility of being a public Catholic - there is a counterinsurgency.   We are invigorated.  These are the days.

So, I guess it's all working out.

These are the days you'll remember.

Never before and never since, I promise, 
will the whole world be warm as this.

And as you feel it, 

you'll know it's true
 that you 
are blessed and lucky.

It's true that you are touched by something 

that will grow and bloom in you.

These are the days you'll remember.

When May is rushing over you with desire 

to be part of the miracles you see in every hour.

You'll know it's true 

that you are blessed and lucky.

It's true 

that you

 are touched by something 

that will grow and bloom in you.

These.
Are.
The days!!

These are the days you might fill with laughter until you break.

These days 

you might feel a shaft of light 

make its way across your face.

And when you do 

you'll know how it was meant to be.

See the signs and know their meaning.

It's true,
you'll know how it was meant to be.
See the signs and know they're speaking
to you.


To YOU.


***