For you say, “I am rich and affluent and have no need of anything,” and yet do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. - Revelation 3:17
This one goes a leap beyond the believable I think, even for the most fervent Catholic haters. We become defiled through our desire for revenge. Forgiveness is an act of the will, a gift to another which comes from sorrow.
“You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel; when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me. If I tell the wicked man that he shall surely die, and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked man from his way, he (the wicked man) shall die for his guilt, but I will hold you responsible for his death. But if you warn the wicked man, trying to turn him from his way, and he refuses to turn from his way, he shall die for his guilt, but you shall save yourself.” - Ezekiel 33:7-9
According to Father Doyle, Archbishop Burke is “vindictively clubbing people with canon law”, for issuing a decree of two “canonical crimes” against him for defending two excommunicated board members from St. Stanislaus parish. According to the decree, Fr. Doyle did not adhere to the requirement of having prior approval from the Bishop to represent the excommunicated board members nor did he immediately respond to his summons to appear before him. Archbishop Burke’ is also keenly aware of Fr. Doyle’s beliefs and ideology which are inconsistent with Catholic teaching.
In his defense, Father Doyle responded to the charges of negligence on his behalf.
“He’s making a mockery of the role of the bishop, a mockery of himself, and the role of leadership in the church when it comes to resolving disputes and problems.”
Doyle said he didn’t get Burke’s approval to represent Krauze and Rozanski because he was already representing other board members in their appeal to the Vatican. “He exaggerated it,” he said. “It’s total nonsense.”
Doyle also objected to Burke’s contention that he has publicly taken a position contrary to the infallible teachings of the church. “My faith and what I believe, and how I believe is none of his business,” he said. “It’s personal. “My obedience to him has nothing to do with my standing with the higher power.”
Our previous experience with Fr. Doyle and his response to our unfavorable view of his role as a Catholic priest can be read here.
Most remember that St. Stanislaus Parish in St. Louis rebelled against their Bishop’s authority back in 2005 and voted “to hire” their own priest. This goes to show that the rebellion of Trusteeism that plagued the Catholic Church in the U.S., beginning in earnest in the early 19th century, is still alive today.
Trusteeism of course was the revolt of some Catholic parishes, who were affected by practical Protestant ecclesiology and the democratic culture of the U.S. They exercised the legal authority over parish property that they had in the name of their trustees in order to usurp the authority of the Bishop. Trustees existed in the U.S. because of many states’ anti-Catholic laws prohibiting the property to be owned by the Catholic Diocese.
Well, it seems that St. Stanislaus has experienced a time warp and made its way from this initial anti-hierarchical Protestantism and covered a couple of centuries of doctrinal decay in a very short time. Apparently the priest that St. Stanislaus brought in had more in mind for the parish than simply continuing leading it in an otherwise Catholic manner.
An article in STL Today shows that those responsible for St. Stanislaus’ revolt are now looking to get rid of the priest that they brought in. What they wanted was a priest who limited his refusal of assent to truth solely to his recognition of the authority of the hierarchy which ordained him. They did not want one who also rejected the other dogmatic teachings on faith and morals. Not surprisingly, that is what they got.
I don’t suppose that it will become apparent to these parishioners anytime soon that they are simply reaping the inevitable consequences of their actions. What they are seeing is the natural result of their initial denial of the truth of the authority of the Bishop over their parish.
They may have in fact lost their parish as the priest has brought in enough new dissenters, such that the original dissenters are now outnumbered. The new dissenters want to keep the priest because he has open communion, including for those who have divorced and remarried and for those who live a same sex attraction disordered lifestyle. He also attended the attempted “ordination” of women as Catholic priests.
I cannot think of another case that has demonstrated so aptly and so quickly, the logical consequence of Protestant rebellion. Once the principle of Church organization/hierarchical authority has been ruptured, there is nothing left but the arbitrary will of those remaining to keep a community, in any degree, in union with the teachings of Christ. St. Stanislaus, pray for us!
I have long believed that the problems that Bishop Braxton has faced in Belleville, IL since his installation were motivated by his orthodoxy and demands for fidelity to the faith. Now comes further evidence that this is so. Many have probably already read the Bishop’s Holy Thursday letter, but if not here is a link to it along with some relevant snippets:
There was, however, one experience associated with my Installation celebration that is unknown to you. It is something that I have kept to myself for nearly three years. I now think it might be helpful for you, the Christian Faithful, to know about this experience. Just days before my Installation, the Administrator of the Diocese informed me that a group of priests wanted to meet with me in the rectory of what would soon be my Cathedral Church. I went to the meeting with no knowledge of what the meeting was about. The meeting was with a group of priests who I did not know at all, having never met them or spoken to them before. They certainly did not know me. To my surprise, the purpose of the meeting was to inform me that I should reject the appointment by the Holy Father to be your Bishop that I should cancel the Installation ceremony and step aside so that a more suitable Bishop could be chosen. For a period of more than two hours, these priests told me that there was a “firestorm of hatred” against me in Belleville, that I was not welcome here, that I would never be welcome here, that very few people would attend my Installation, and that they had investigated my history and could not find even one person from anyplace where I have served around the country who had anything positive to say about me. They also told me they had incriminating information against me which might be released, if I did not heed their words. They were quite insistent that I had no choice but to leave.
I listened to their entire startling presentation without interrupting any of the speakers. Before I spoke, I asked if everyone had finished with their comments. I then informed them that it is the unique ministry of our Holy Father, the Pope, to appoint and transfer bishops, or to ask for their resignations. No one else in the Church has the authority or the responsibility to do so. I told them that in my life as a Priest and as a Bishop I have always sought to be completely obedient to the Holy Father and completely faithful to the magisterium of the Church. I stated clearly that it was my intention to serve the Diocese faithfully for as long as the Holy Father wanted me to do so. I now repeat to you today what I said to this group of priests. It is my intention to serve as Bishop of the Diocese of Belleville for as long as the Holy Father wants me to do so. Shortly after this meeting, perhaps unprecedented in the history of the Church in the United States, I received an anonymous phone call on my private line. The message was simple. “We will not rest until we get rid of you.” Recently, I received the same message from the same anonymous caller. I have shared this experience with you with some hesitance. However, it may help you to understand more recent experiences.
One need not venture very far to guess who these priests might have been as they have signed their names regularly and publicly to complaints against the Bishop since he first arrived. Bishop Braxton ends his letter with words from St. Thomas More indicating that he will remain faithful to the Holy Father and the Church even in the face of this white martyrdom to which he is being subjected. Please pray for Bishop Braxton and the Diocese of Belleville.
Now if it were not so fundamental an issue as life, perhaps I could respect someone who repays old loyalties. However, when someone claims to be Catholic, claims his position as an officer in the Knights of Columbus, and even establishes a pro-life apostolate working for legislation that supports both life and family issues and then not only votes for one of the worst politicians on these issues who is running for president , but he actually campaigns for her, well. . . this I cannot respect.
I nearly fell off my chair when I read that Ray Flynn was campaigning for Hillary Clinton. I saw that the Curt Jester had already noticed Flynn had voted for her in the MA primaries. I was in the middle of my move is probably why I missed that post. One asks how anyone could do some such thing that is so antithetical to his view of truth. Jeff shows how: Flynn admits that it is his loyalty to his former boss, Bill Clinton.
Flynn exasperated his Democratic friends and colleagues when he became a strong, public advocate for a culture of life. They were completely befuddled as he voted and campaigned for pro-life Republicans at all levels of Government. He even endorsed “Dubya” against Gore, though he couldn’t bring himself to do so the second time around.
While I disagree with his views about Clinton’s economic and social justice policies and how these accord with Catholic values, that is certainly something that is open to debate among faithful Catholics. We can vociferously disagree and then go out for a Guinness together afterward. However, when one returns to one’s loyalties in such a way that it will promote the death of untold numbers of unborn children, when policies will be championed that will further attack marriage and family, when one is working at cross purposes with himself, this is not an area in which good Catholics may just simply disagree with one another and both be good Catholics.
It is the sin of pride at root I suspect. The fear of someone having something over you in which you cannot repay him that can lead someone like Flynn into such a publicly sinful and scandalous action. Instead of continuing to witness and work for a culture of life, Flynn now takes action to put someone in the office of President of the United States who will promote a culture of death. This is formal cooperation with evil; it is mortally sinful and publicly scandalous. Because of his position, Archbishop O’Malley should take very public action against Flynn to bring him back to his senses and end this scandal.
Flynn seems to exemplify the sinful rationalizations of his earlier career in which he consorted with the angels of death for the sake of political expedience. St. Peter’s admonition about the return to one’s sinful ways after repenting from them was illustrated ever more aptly in the second proverb of this pericope from his second letter . . . “A sow even after washing wallows in the mire” (2 Pt 2:22).
For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the LORD, As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are My ways above your ways and My thoughts above your thoughts. —Isaiah 55:8–9
Clayton (The Weight of Glory) covers how the recent declaration made by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith created a watershed moment for the feminist movement within the Catholic Church who have been trying to replace patriarchal influences with repressive ideas of their own. These religious extremists who push their perversions onto the Church separate themselves from those originating from the Middle East in one significant way - where the act of one kills or mutilates the human body, the action of the other inflicts death and destruction onto the human soul.
Father Bob out of Australia who gained notoriety for hearing confessions live on a radio show, is of the opinion that it’s morally mandatory that priests should violate the seal of the confessional and report those who confess to child abuse while in the confessional. He said, “I believe everyone should report abuse. It’s their moral duty. If it takes mandatory reporting to make sure, that’s how it will have to be.” What did he think he was actually doing in the confines of the confessional?
“When you go to Confession, know this, that I Myself am waiting for you in the confessional; I am only hidden by the priest, but I Myself act in the soul. Here the misery of the soul meets the God of Mercy.” - Jesus to Saint Faustina
Fr. Bob has a history of dissent, especially as it related to contraception. He was of the opinion that the Church should mind it’s own business on certain matters, so it’s not particularly shocking that it seems as though he believes priests should fall under the authority of the secular state, who screen criminals (vs. repentant sinners) who confess in the confines of a Catholic confession. It must be he also failed to remember that the sacramental seal is inviolable and quoting Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states:
“…It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason” (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. He cannot be compelled by law to disclose a person’s confession or be bound by any oath he takes, e.g. as a witness in a court trial. A priest cannot reveal the contents of a confession either directly, by repeating the substance of what has been said, or indirectly, by some sign, suggestion, or action. A Decree from the Holy Office (Nov. 18, 1682)
What ever the culprit - yesterday it was murderers and rapists, while today it’s child molesters - there will always be a diabolical assault on the Sacrament of reconciliation specifically because it was given to us by Christ, the Great Physician, who knows everything about us and the healing powers of confession on our soul, in both a supernatural and psychological sense.
“The tears of the penitents are wine for the angels.” — St. Bernard
Those who hate and attack this great sacrament know nothing about it. They have never experienced the depth of God’s forgiveness and mercy available to them in the confessional, nor do they understand the power of God’s grace given freely to our priests to guide them in doing what is righteous. There is No price or potential crime known to man that is worth desecrating the Sacrament of reconciliation. The value of each and every one of our souls are without measure - while the bodies eventually die, the consequences of sin on souls are eternal.
As a side note: the story of a “confession” of a repeat sex offender was from a non catholic denomination, but the press just so happen to get a couple of quotes from a reliable dissenter to bring it back to the Catholic church.
I have been made aware in recent months of
But recently, a reader, who is close to the scene at Belmont Abbey College, sent along an article from CNA reporting on a situation that has caused great turmoil at the college. It seems that the school is being sued by some of the faculty and staff for removing contraception and abortion from their medical benefits. Though it is encouraging that these benefits are being dropped, the reader believes that things are a complete mess at the college. It seems that the faculty is almost uniformly opposed to the administration’s stated desire to stress “Catholic identity.” Though there are only eight signatories to the suit, the faculty is said to be almost entirely in the corner of the signatories. And, I understand, that is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to faculty dissent at
I saw a curious post on Catholic Answers as I was looking around to see what others have said about this issue (pasted here for your convenience):
We all like stories where there is a “good guy” and a “bad guy.” Some well-meaning Catholic bloggers seem willing to cast the administration in the white hat, and the lawsuit-threatening faculty members in the black hat. However, the truth is much more complex, and we must wake up to this reality. I caution people to remember that there are always two (or more) sides to a story, and not to jump to conclusions based on the side of the story that comes straight from the college’s highly image-conscious administration.
I certainly applaud President Thierfelder and Abbot Solari for standing firm in the Faith when faced with such strident opposition. Had they been doing their duty, though, they would have noticed this immoral health-care policy years earlier. I also applaud the lone faculty member who had the courage to speak up for the truth and bring this immoral health care coverage to their notice, at the risk of being persecuted by his/her colleagues. This person is unnamed, probably for his/her own protection, but I want him/her to know that some of us recognize the courage it took.
Like many of you, I felt hopeful after Dr. Thierfelder took over at Belmont Abbey – I liked his vision and thought this college might be added to a regrettably small number of truly faithful Catholic colleges. However, shortly after he arrived, serious problems developed between the new administration, faculty and even some students. President Thierfelder and most of the Vice Presidents he’s hired (including the newest VP of Academic Affairs) come from a business background, with little to no understanding of how to run a college. They have implemented a business model, where the CEO (president) makes unilateral decisions and pushes them down to the labor force (faculty and staff), to better serve the clients (students). This is foreign to many in higher ed who are familiar with the “shared governance” model normally used at colleges and universities, but this is exactly what Dr. Thierfelder has done since he first arrived.
As each year passes and more top-down authoritarian decisions are made, it has caused the faculty (including even some of the Catholic members) to feel abandoned and ignored, resulting in a loss of respect and confidence in the administration. (One professor summed up this frustration nicely in an article found at http://crusader.bac.edu/english/crus…n….) After several years of this, the faculty has finally reached a breaking point. Unfortunately, their “line in the sand” was poorly chosen, using the one issue that deals with a higher moral issue.
I’m certainly no fan of some faculty there and I wouldn’t be sorry to see them go. I also agree it is VERY wrong for the 8 complainers and the many others who support them to insist on bringing back immoral and anti-Catholic health benefits. However, to be fair and just, I also understand their growing frustration with the administration’s ill will, incompetence or both. What has surfaced in this controversy is only the tip of an iceberg that has been forming for several years. If President Thierfelder had taken the time in his first year to review all the policies and procedures (including health care) already in place, to learn about higher education processes, to treat the faculty with more respect, and to allow them more input into some of the decisions that affect them, then there might be less hostility today. This is a case where BOTH sides (administration and faculty) share responsibility in the many underlying problems that led up to this controversial “explosion.”
I am grateful that Belmont Abbey students like xsuasox and edward_george have so far not seen the ugliness behind the scenes at the college, and I hope they will keep the fire in their faith as more of this seeps out. However, college-bound students and their parents would do well to look into better alternatives such asChristendom College ,Franciscan University ,Holy Apostles College , orWyoming Catholic College .
William Carter
Carter complains about the new administration, though recognizing the goodness of the administration’s actions to eliminate the offending health-care policy. He argues that the school president and his staff have been running things in an autocratic manner in opposition to the secular academic model, which demands running a college in a democratic way, that is, with the input of the faculty. In asserting that the President should have reviewed the policies in place when he took over, one might read him as implying that the policy implementing the democratic model should have been removed years earlier. If that is his intent, then I would wholly assent to that notion (I would hope that he is not advocating for the “democratic” model). The fact that it was not leads one to ask if this was negligence on the part of the administration or a necessity in their strategy to reform the college. Certainly the offending health care offerings should have been eliminated years ago. But, given what we have been hearing about the faculty, it is obvious that they would never have cooperatively allowed the elimination of these “health care” options.
Perhaps it is, in the end, a hopeful sign that only a handful of faculty has signed the lawsuit. However, the evidence suggests that the school’s administration still has a long way to go before they are able to bring
On a related note, one may wonder about the condition of Belmont Abbey itself. After all, Benedictine colleges are generally closely connected to the monastic houses that founded them. And the ad campaign plays up the presence of monks on the campus. Unfortunately, our aforementioned “reader-on-the-scene” informs us,
I cannot let the patronal feast day for universities, especially Catholic universities, as well as theologians and philosophers pass by without some mention. St. Thomas Aquinas was the epitome of what it means to be a Christian with a vocation in higher education. He had a tremendous intellect that was made even more unique, and effective, by his heroic humility. His adoption of Aristotelian philosophy shows that he believed in an authentic academic freedom. But for sure, it was not the tiresome demands for liberty without responsibility which is too often trotted out today by faculty at Catholic universities. They demand their private “rights” to error over against the rights of the schools, students, and benefactors who pay their salaries.
Authentic academic freedom is freedom to pursue the truth in the manner appropriate to the discipline. In research and in teaching, this means submission to the authority established by the discipline. For example, one cannot unilaterally demand that one’s own contradictory views on say, Newton’s laws of motion, be substituted for what Newton actually said under the guise of academic freedom. One cannot say that one’s own formulation that contradict’s Kirchoff’s is really Kirchoff’s Law. In every discipline one experiences constraints. It is in fact, those constraints which themselves define the discipline.
This is very apparent in almost every field except for some reason, when it comes to what it means to be a Catholic university and the teaching of Catholic theology. These two items coalesce, in a way, in an article from the American Spectator commenting on the recent flap about Rick Majerus and his position at St. Louis University. The author of the article, George Neumayr, discusses this controversy in the context of a lawsuit that was filed against SLU, ironically, in the building of the basketball arena. It seems that SLU was given an $8M tax abatement to begin building the sports arena and the local Masons didn’t take kindly to the abatement (or perhaps the building) for many reasons. As is fitting with their history, the Masons brought suit in federal court arguing that government money should not be given to religious schools.
Neumayr wryly observes that the Masons tried to prove that SLU was a Catholic university while the Jesuits “provided evidence that the school hasn’t taken Catholicism seriously for years.” He goes on to illustrate how faithfully Majerus manifests his Jesuit formed intellect:
The Jesuits at SLU haven’t said much so far, but Majerus isn’t apologetic, wheeling out the familiar cart of feeble bromides. “I think religion should be inclusive. I would hope that all people would feel welcome inside a church, and that the church would serve to bring people together, even if they happen to disagree on certain things,” he said.
Where did Majerus pick up his progressive patter? At another Jesuit university, Marquette. Finding himself in a pickle, he is invoking this fine educational pedigree: “I’m very respectful to the archbishop, but I rely on my value judgments, thanks to my education at Marquette, which is a Jesuit institution, just like St. Louis. That Jesuit education led me to believe that I can make a value judgment. And my value judgment happens to differ from the archbishop’s. I do not speak for the university or the Catholic Church. These are my personal views. And I’m not letting him change my mind.”
Personal values have replaced the concept of truth for so many in Catholic education of all levels today, not just the Jesuit. Almost all of these dissenting “Catholic” universities still want, for some strange reason (could it be economic??), an affiliation with their Catholic roots but only on their own terms.
Not to pick on the Jesuits, but representative of this thinking is an article in the Seattle Times by the president of another Jesuit university, Fr. Stephen Sundborg, president of Seattle University. His op-ed piece looks back on his first ten years as the president of the school with 10 of his greatest lessons learned. At number four he lists the importance of academic freedom and at number nine he lists the importance of being a university and Catholic. Once gets the sense that the order reflects the importance but of the Catholic identity with respect to academic freedom and being a university vs. its Catholic identity. His description of the importance of the school’s Catholic identity is not particularly enlightening and though it does seem a bit at odds with SLU’s position, in trying to intuit what he means one needs to look at it in the overall context of his article…and apparently the importance of the school’s Catholic identity would extend to the now common redefinition of the faith as just another articulation of social concerns.
On this feast of Thomas Aquinas it is a good time to pray for Catholic education and Catholic educators, especially in higher education. We must pray that we once again recover our intellectual birthright that was traded away for secular porridge at the 1967 Land O Lakes conference. We should pray that Catholics who send their children to Catholic schools and universities once again be given the breadth and depth of the Catholic intellectual tradition and the thinking skills which will allow them to see how intellectually vacuous most dissent actually has become. This is the only antidote to the trend towards intellectual suicide that has been exhibited in western higher education in general, and in most “Catholic” education in particular, in the last half century or more.
St. Thomas, pray for us!
If there’s one thing most miserable people in the world have in common, it’s that they are incapable and/or unwilling to accept an essential fact of life - there will always be victims in the fallen world in which we now live. Although at significantly different levels, pretty much each and every human being born into this world has experienced, either real or imagined, some sort of injustice committed against them. What is often overlooked, perhaps due to the traumatic perception of the injustice, is how one should and could be expected to flourish as a person after experiencing the trauma of an injustice itself. In my unprofessional opinion, the attitude one takes towards an injustice has more of an impact on the spiritual welfare of the individual and the countless souls who are ultimately affected by that particular person’s existence than the act of injustice itself. Of course, one’s attitude and the degree of subsequent healing can also be affected by one’s personal motivation and coping skills, or lack thereof. As with DNA, no two of us (even identical twins) will react in exactly the same way - as such, we should never expect the same reactions and outcomes of victims of similar injustices. I think this is often overlooked with those who attempt to reject the assertion that SSA is a disorder and the long term effects that childhood trauma can have on this and other disorders. One must also acknowledge that what constitutes trauma in one child may not in another. While not denying similarities among children, I would still claim that most children react to trauma and perceived injustices in a manner that is often specific them.
So what does this all have to do with heretics? I would argue that a point of motivation among dissenters is one of reacting to the anger - which takes root when one of the most self-destructive, mal-adaptive coping mechanism known as self-pity becomes their primary source of comfort and cosolation. Let me offer a few quotes I found that I think may help explain the behaviors of those who have grown to distrust and despise the concept of authority as well as the reality of who and what they are as human persons:
“Never feel self-pity, the most destructive emotion there is. How awful to be caught up in the terrible squirrel cage of self.” - Millicent Fenwick
“Self-pity is easily the most destructive of the non-pharmaceutical narcotics; it is addictive, gives momentary pleasure and separates the victim from reality.” - John W. Gardner
“Of all the infirmities we have, the most savage is to despise our being.” - Michel Eyquem De Montaigne
“There are few human emotions as warm, comforting, and enveloping as self-pity. And nothing is more corrosive and destructive. There is only one answer; turn away from it and move on.” - Dr Megan Reik
I believe I can understand to a certain degree why Catholic dissenters feel justified in their open dissent. I imagine many of these afflicted souls who have found refuge within the lies of radical feminism, the SSAD lifestyle, sexual promiscuity and other sexual deviancies, choice, etc… are attempting to exorcise their “demons” by displacing their own fear and anger and project it toward those whom they believe are ultimately responsible for all of their misery and lonliness, providing them with a sense of entitlement by which to spew all of their vitriol toward the authority of the Church. They do it with the hope of filling the spiritual and emotional emptiness caused through their self-pity blame game and its attendant demons (see above) to whom they have given home. They are hoping that all the wrongs will be righted for them and the world. Of course, they only momentarily drown out their interior conflicts.
Ironically, and perhaps even hypocritically, the objective of Catholic dissenters is not to remove a repressive authority from the Church, but to forcefully replace “it” with one of their own making. Their aim is to remove the obligation of having to deal with the truths that come into conflict with our sinful, fallen nature. It is not easy making that initial shift in thinking from perceived master to humble beggar, where one is continually humbled with the reality of his own personal failures, faults, and sinfulness.
Of course, it is not the case that only those who embrace self-pity become dissenters of the faith. Politics, poor catechesis, laziness, apathy, etc. are also major causes. I’m sure there are also other reasons. Nevertheless, I do think underlying psychological pathologies also play a significant role in drawing many to found, lead and/or join the host of notoriously anti-catholic Catholic organizations that plague the Church today.
LifeSite announced that after meeting with Archbishop Flynn, the controversial priest from Saint Frances Cabrini Parish, Father Leo Tibesar, has agreed to remove “any language from the St. Frances Cabrini parish website that is in opposition to Roman Catholic Church doctrine.”
Removed from the parish website was a page titled a “Statement of Reconciliation” which bemoaned Church teaching on sexual purity and married chastity and misrepresented these teachings as a form of “oppression.” The statement said the parish is committed to “Publicly bless the relationships of a same sex couple after the couple completes a process of discernment similar to that completed by heterosexual couples before marriage.” The item had an asterisk referring to a note on the bottom reading “not being implemented at this time.”
Yeah, they technically removed the “Statement of Reconciliation” tab from the website, but what looks to be either a totally incompetent oversight or a blatant act of passive/ aggressive rebellion - the parish website continues to misrepresent the Church’s teaching on same sex attraction disorder while endorsing the lifestyle on it’s GLBT page. Although this may be an instance of the inmates running the asylum, it looks to me as the fruit of dissent not falling far from the the tree. In my opinion, this looks suspiciously similar to a childlike testing of limits, and as parents - the Archdiocese should immediately crack down to sanitize the parish and it’s website of this sort of scandalous garbage. As in real life, intellectual children respond best to confident and consistent parents who clearly established boundaries and who are not hesitant to burn some little butts from time to time, when necessary.
Fr. Raymond Gravel, a Catholic priest/Canadian politician who promised his Bishop he would NOT take on political positions that opposed the Catholic faith, went on record as defending legalized abortion as being a good thing. Yesterday he prefaced his credentials of being a Catholic priest prior to condemning a bill which would recognize the life of an unborn child as being separate from that of the mother. In short, he opposed the bill on two points - first, he felt the Campaign Life Coalition who tabled the bill was too fanatical and second, the fetus is only a fetus - which is only an “it”.
Upon careful examination of the text of his political sermon, it almost seems as though he dotted and crossed his way all the way up to a heretical line without legally crossing it - but if by chance, his message was intended to portray the image of a heretic, than he pretty much knocked it out of the park. I quoted out his short speech, deleting what I saw to be deceptive CYA disclaimers, including proclamations of being Pro-Life.
As a Catholic priest, I find it somewhat difficult to relate to this bill quite simply because the member who tabled it belongs to a pro-life group, the Campaign Life Coalition, which, in my humble opinion, is a fairly extremist and fanatical group.
I believe it is dangerous to establish a new law that would treat the murder of the fetus and of the mother as a double murder… In my opinion, this bill will open the door to re-criminalizing women who have an abortion, and that is not a good thing.
When a pregnant woman is assaulted or killed and her fetus is killed at the same time, I agree completely that it is an abominable crime. …I believe that when the fetus is in its mother’s womb, they are one being. ONLY when it leaves her womb does it become a child.
I think a moderate approach is needed. It is not by creating new legislation that we will successfully reduce the number of abortions and creating new committees…
One can’t help but marvel over a pro-lifer who appears so committed in protecting the life of the non-existent and speaking on behalf of those who never could, should or woulds and to seek to avoid and lower abortion ratess, despite there being NO death!
His plan to end abortion? In order that we, as pro-lifers, can save lives where there is none taken - we must also go to places where the Pro-Life movement has dared not go before. We must give something that is commonly referred to - by some - as support, love and understanding. We can also do something as simple as to “take control of the situation“, and fix other stuff like finances and relationships. Well who’da thunk it?
Well. Since I posted something yesterday along the lines of spiritually adopting priests, and since this was the next priest who saw the light of day on this blog- I am committing to adopt Father Gravel for a period of one month, with additional monthly options for each one there-after, for whom I will pray for each and every day, to include an unspecified duration of time spent in Eucharistic adoration and a daily rosary - I heard you eventually get quite fond of people you pray for.
Credits: Image and Story - LifeSite
So says the leader of the Evangelical “seeker friendly” or “seeker sensitive” Mega-Church, Willow Creek in the suburbs of Chicago. Most Catholics probably have not heard about Willow Creek or the “seeker friendly” model to church building that Willow Creek has championed and promoted over the last decade. For those who have, this probably serves as old news.
So what is seeker friendliness. Here is a good summary from a critic of Willow Creek’s approach. But in general, those who engender the seeker sensitive method are concerned not to burden those seeking Christ, with unnecessary doctrine (read demands) that will keep them from their journey toward Him. The approach is concerned to respond to what the seeker wants, the critics say, but this is at the expense of providing what the seeker needs.
Amazingly enough, the leaders of the movement may now agree. Christianity Today summarizes an internal study by Willow Creek which assesses the effectiveness of the seeker friendly model in creating disciples of Christ and the founder’s, Bill Hybels, admission that they made a mistake. It seems that the data showed them that while they had a plethora of arms waving in the seats, a lot of buildings, and a mass of bucks in the bank, the seekers were not becoming disciples. Not all agree that the study warrants such an admission by Willow Creek, though the previous linked assessment is by an admitted fan of the seeker friendly approach.
My point here is not to address the Evangelical church building philosophy, but to suggest that the Catholic experience over the last generation or so, at least in the US, could have told them what they took a decade to find out. Across most of the US, Catholics have been exposed to a watered down exposition of the faith since the late 1960s. I would argue that this has been a major factor (if not the major factor) in producing a large percentage of Catholics who no longer practice their faith, who have left the Church for other faiths (Christian and otherwise), and among those who have stayed, a tepid practice of the faith at best.
Perhaps the bishops and priests who were warned in their formation, not to discuss difficult truths of the faith less they lose their parishioners, might take notice of this development. I wonder how many Catholics who honestly look at the grim harvest that the standard approach of the last 40 years has brought about would have the integrity and humility to admit, also, that they were wrong?
Many of us should know who Father Leo Tibesar is by now and judging by the tone and content of his homily, there leaves little doubt as to the extent of damage which can occur when the rebellious priests of the world are left to their own devices. Sex and gender confusion gone wild, yet again, is the divisive issue evoking yet another priest to lead his parishioners down the path of spiritual destruction.
I think what disturbs me most is the means by which Fr. Tibesar is going about establishing his own kingdom come. As stated on his parish’s website, he blatantly accuses the Vatican of teaching that the “homosexual persons” themselves are “objectively disordered”, vs. the truth of homosexual tendencies being objectively disordered - there’s a huge difference, between a human person and a disordered tendency. Although, this text may be next to impossible to understand or to be believed by those of us who can’t help but place a value on others based solely on how much we like them or by how they make us feel. So often indicative of one’s state in life, Fr. Tibesar’s homily was cold and void of any message of hope, love or forgiveness; projecting instead a message of disobedience, anger and defeat.
It’s one thing to love, accept and minister to persons with SSAD according to the wisdom of the Church, but it’s quite another to “marry” them - according to the parish website - Fr. Tibesar Publicly blesses the relationships of a same sex couples after the couple completes a process of discernment similar to that completed by heterosexual couples before marriage (although it claims it is not being done at this time). Among other commitments of reconciliation towards the GLBT community, the parish has a “gay/lesbian” perspective in catechesis at all levels, including elementary school age. They also are working towards the acceptance of qualified, openly “gay or lesbian” priests or lay ministers. As probably predictable at this point, instead of links to Courage and other resources to support parishioners and others with SSAD, there are links on the parish website with such fitting names as GenderBlur which promote and attempt to legitimize the SSAD lifestyle.
May God bless ALL of our priests.
Credits: Image and Links - St. Frances Cabrini Website
Father Thomas J. Euteneur sent an open letter to Father Thomas Brennan about abusively using his position as a priest, and the Holy Mass as a means of self-promoting his homosexuality. Fr. Euteneur explained to Fr. Brennan that his public declaration justified a public response and also suggested the Jesuit had a disordered motive for embracing the celibate state.
“A heterosexual celibate renounces his natural desire for wife and children in order to serve the Bride of Christ in a direct spousal relationship. A homosexual celibate renounces an unholy desire for members of the same sex: that is a renunciation of a disorder, not the embrace of a Bride.”
Fr. Brennan was also taken to task for confusing and scandalizing his parishioners by choosing to go public about his homosexual identity as some sort of lame expression of “diversity” or “pride”. Father Euteneur went on to clarify that not only does Fr. Brennan owe them an apology, but he also owes them a better example of what it is to be a priest. May we give thanks and praise for all of our faithful priests.
CNA has run an article (posted on EWTN’s news review) on a book by Cardinal Pell, Archbishop of Sydney, Australia on the issue of Catholics and the practice of artificial contraception. Well, Cardinal Pell is at it again. I guess that he did not learn his lesson when he was reported to the CDF last year for ignoring Church teaching on the primacy of conscience.
In a new book, Cardinal Pell identifies the main problems with the heresy of rejecting this irreformable Church teaching on the supposition that one’s conscience can contradict Magisterial authority. Here are some snippets from the article:
Taking a metaphor from Oxford professor Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, the cardinal called this belief that has spread among Catholics the “Donald Duck heresy,” referring to the Disney character who “knows it all”, and “has an unshakeable conviction of self-righteousness.” The self-indulgent duck, explains Pell, is well-meaning but “his activity is often disastrous for himself and others.”
The same thing happens with Catholics who practice and promote a disordered vision of human sexuality through contraception, abortion and the destruction of embryos.
With claims to “primacy of conscience,” he said, “they falsely believe themselves in the right, while they thus distort the image of God which the Creator intended to convey in the fruitful sexual union of husband and wife.”
“Too many ‘Donald Ducks’ produce a ‘feel good’ society, which works to remove personal guilt, anything that would make people feel uncomfortable, and complacent self-satisfaction becomes a virtue,” writes Pell. “Confession of sins is replaced with therapy, and self-reproach with self-discovery.”
Well, in case you don’t make it to the article I linked to from last year, here is my short summary of Church teaching on conscience that explains what the Cardinal says what he does:
Conscience is not a source of Divine Revelation, nor it is a process of reflective moral speculation on par with the Magisterium. Rather, it is a faculty by which one 1) becomes aware of objective moral norms, 2) applies the norms to the given situation, 3) judges whether one’s actions are in conformance with these norms, and then 4) either acquits or condemns the person in his action or failure to act. Notice here there is no place for determining whether the Church teaching on objective moral norms is correct or not. That is not a function of conscience. A person can honestly err in any of the above steps and be morally inculpable. However, he cannot consciously dissent from revealed truth as authoritatively taught by the Magisterium and inculpably absolve himself from acting justly, by falsely classifying his action as a judgment of conscience.
You know, I never thought about it before but since an errant will is the primary source of all error it is quite appropriate to use a clown symbol like ole Donald to represent those who steel their wills against the authority Christ left here on earth. In the end, those of us who do so often end up looking quite foolish in our attempts at rationalization.
In the news lately, has been the resurgence of speakers who variously advocate for the culture of death speaking at Catholic universities. Thomas, our American Papist, gives a rundown on an ongoing issue with Creighton University’s invitation of Ann Lamott; LifeSiteNews gives an update.
Apparently, the US Bishop’s Catholic University of America, one of my alma maters, has, after initial refusal, decided to allow John Kerry to speak at CUA. John Kerry says that he opposes abortion as an article of his Catholic faith but he does not think that he can “impose” his articles of faith on the rest of society. Thus, he gained a 100% pro-abortion rating from NARAL Pro-choice America.
LifeSite reports the justification for allowing someone with Kerry’s record, given by the CUA student leader who invited the former presidential candidate:
Mark Arnone, chairman of the College Democrats who invited Kerry to speak at CUA, defended the decision saying Kerry “expresses remarkable dedication to the doctrine and principles of Catholic social teaching established in Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical ‘Rerum Novarum’” Arnone cited Kerry advocacy “for affordable and accessible health care…minimum wage reform” and the environment. John Paul II and Pope Benedict have strongly emphasized that the life issues are of much higher priority than these other issues.
The sloppy thinking of both Kerry, Arnone, and apparently those at CUA who allowed Kerry to come, is quite evident. Kerry’s claim that abortion is murder is dogmatically certain as he suggests. However, what he fails to admit is that it is also a certainty which can be achieved through reason alone–we call this natural law. It is likewise dogmatically certain that putting innocent people to death in Nazi Germany is morally reprehensible. By Kerry’s logic, since it was legal in Nazi Germany, if he had been a German politician at the time he would have been obligated to support the “Final Solution” else he would have been guilty of “imposing” his religious faith on the rest of Germany.
One can see the fallacy of Arnone’s argument in a similar way. While it is far from given that Kerry “expresses a remarkable dedication” to Catholic social teaching, for the sake of argument let’s grant this. One still must ask what this has to do with the price of tea in China. The issue is that Kerry has unwaveringly voted for legislation which promotes the killing of the innocent unborn. Arnone’s argument is akin to defending Adolf Hitler by pointing out his remarkably effective programs which brought Germany out of a long economic depression into industrial and economic flourishing. Neither Kerry’s arguable and coincidental support of policies that accord with Rerum novarum nor Hitler’s leadership acumen excuse the formal participation, of either of them, in homicide.
LifeSite reports on a recent statement by Archbishop Burke as to the need for bishops to make it clear that personalities of Kerry’s ilk need to be publicly dealt with:
To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law. Confusion, of course, is one of the most insidious fruits of scandalous behavior
This situation fits this concern exactly. I do not know if Fr. David O’Connell, CUA’s president, or Archbishop Wuerl, the chancelor of CUA, will intervene but they should. It is clear that a Catholic university that represents all US Catholic bishops has the duty to uphold Catholic teaching and to avoid any actions that would scandalize the faithful. The average Catholic in the US is already confused as to the legitimacy of ignoring the Church’s teaching on abortion and events such as this do nothing to ameliorate this confusion. Unfortunately, experience has shown that if either the CUA President of Chancellor try to cancel the invitation, they will face a major revolt by the University faculty as happened in 2004 when O’Connell barred actor and abortion activist Stanley Tucci from speaking on campus. I suspect that unless the outside public pressure is sufficiently strong that Kerry will be allowed to speak.
Father Sante Sguotti claimed victory in a ballot, of which he called himself, to illustrate the extent of parish support for his position and over turn the local bishop’s desire for him to step down as parish priest. The priest first admitted that he had “fallen in love” with a married woman and implied that he was the father of her one-year-old child, then later denied fathering the woman’s son and admitted to being in love in with her only in a “chaste” kind of way. He wants them to become officially engaged in a special ceremony in December.
Just take a look at this poor man’s discombobulated effort to spin his type of dissenting obedience. I believe he’s using the standard format of gratuitously mentioning the word love, then proceeds to UNlovingly and UNjustly judge the heart and soul of those who choose to be faithful to the Church.
“Canon law does not forbid a priest to fall in love or become engaged in a celibate manner. I want to remain in the Church and so I will obey the celibacy rule.”
“I believe falling in love is a fundamental stage in life. A person can’t be a good priest or nun or anything else in life unless he has experienced love at least once,”
Sguotti argued in a press conference last month that the Church’s celibacy requirement meant that “only the most closed and narrow-minded priests, the least humane ones, get ahead”.
He urged other priests who were in love to “come forward” and break their silence.
What more evidence is there of God’s grace than the tragedy which follows those who flee from it’s protection?
Hierothee passed along an article from the founder and editor of an on-line journal for Catholic education. He is a retired teacher and administrator in Canadian Catholic schools. The fact that he is retired perhaps contextualizes his views as it suggests that the period of his intellectual and faith formation are at least prior to the mid-1980s.
In some ways, the article could be quite humorous if it didn’t bear on such an important issue–the formation of students in Catholic schools. Borst begins citing an article by John Allen in NCReporter in which Allen tries his hand at Catholic theo-sociology. In the Reporter article, Allen extrapolates from another author’s identification of the defining features for Christian Evangelicalism in order to try to understand what he thinks is happening in the Catholic Church. In Allen’s view, apparently, what we have now in the Catholic Church is nothing more than a parallel trend to the Evangelical movement among Protestants. In the Catholic “movement” under the leadership of JPII and B16 we have the leaders “pitching classical Catholic faith and practice in the context of pluralism, making it modern and traditional all at once.”
Allen attempts to identify three major themes of this pitch:
authority, the centrality of key doctrines, and Christian exclusivity. If so [the themes are correct], there’s little doubt that Catholicism under John Paul II and Benedict XVI has become ever more boldly evangelical.
There is little question in my mind why Allen chooses this term. He is confident that with such a name, the media and therefore most Americans will receive this “movement” with the same distaste as does he. It is at least clear that the author quoting Allen, John Borst, shares Allen’s concern. Borst is particularly troubled that we are just seeing the start of this “movement” and so he frets that Catholic educators are in for some “political rough times” ahead.
It is interesting that authority is one of the issues to which Allen points as this is a fundamental aspect of faith, but I will return to this later. However, Borst does pick up on the issue of authority. In a discussion with one of these dreaded “Catholic evangelicals” about homosexuality, Borst says:
At one point, when I described the fact that a number of Catholic writers have explored the issue of homosexuality in significant depth especially around the meaning of love as members of the Body of Christ, I was shocked by the reply that this was the work of dissenters. Probing further, I learned according to this spokesperson the very act of questioning was an act of dissent because it implied a disbelief in the Church’s taught doctrine.
You see, the issue of authority and what constitutes dissent is apparently an epiphany for Borst. He goes on to say:
For Catholic educators this has huge implications. It implies that all Truth is already known. It is fixed, with no need for further exploration. It implies that Church authority is final and that assent to that authority is the defining criteria for identifying oneself as Catholic.
I have to admit that I found Borst’s response surprising. If Borst is being truthful in his ignorance, he does not even seem to realize that the authority the Magisterium understands itself to possess has been an issue between dissenters like himself and the Magisterium since Humanae vitae. It is also unclear to me what of authentic Church teaching he has been exposed if he does not even realize that he is a dissenter.
I could also mention his non sequitur: that is, to infer that because the Catholic Church definitively teaches that always and everywhere homosexual inclinations are intrinsically disordered and, therefore, consenting to these inclinations is gravely evil, that the Church must also then claim that “all Truth is already known.” Because one truth is known with absolute certainty does not lead to the necessary conclusion that all truth is known. I wonder if he “thought” this non sequitur up himself, or if he has simply accepted the canard from others with the assent of dissenting “faith.”
With respect to Borst’s surprise at the contention that identity as a Catholic means assent to the Church’s teaching authority as final, it would seem that he has not read Lumen gentium 25 very carefully if he does not at least understand that he is dissenting from what the Church authoritatively teaches. Chesterton has an interesting thought on this. Chesterton says that the Catholic faith is exactly that; it is belief in Catholic doctrine. Belief rules out searching, for if one is still searching then he does not yet believe. Therefore, it would be logically inconsistent to call himself Catholic.
The Catholic Church is distinguished from other Christian traditions in many ways, but the fundamental issue is the authority of the Church to teach definitively, in the name of Christ, through its bishops in union with the successor to Peter. I find it amazing that Borst seems to be ignorant of this. Most dissenters will have responses for why they reject any number of Church teachings but he seems not even to know he needs to defend his dissent. Nevertheless, as Chesterton would point out, any argument in support of dissent by definition rules one out from claiming to be Catholic because one does not hold the Catholic faith. If one dissents from even one teaching that the Church asserts as authoritative, then one simply happens to agree with some Church teachings and disagrees with others. This much is true, though probably in differing degrees, even for most atheists. What Borst professes is not faith but, at most, a coincidental correspondence of some of his opinions with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
In the context of dissent from authority, it is all the more ironic that Borst challenges the Church’s authority on many moral issues for the reason he had recently written a post eschewing the activities of lay Catholics in challenging the authority of some Catholic school boards in Canada to teach about homosexuality as they saw fit, deriding the lay Catholics’ activities as “vigilante Catholicism.”
Borst goes on to reveal that he succumbs to the thoughtless rationalism that pervades most dissenters, especially in the various halls of academia. He writes:
I find it hard to believe Catholic Evangelicals would agree with Dennis Murphy when he states first that “this search for truth which gives us our identity is not about fleeing from our secular culture but constructively engaging it in a critical way” and concomitantly that we are “a religion with a brain” and a people that “believe that we can attain the truth through thinking.”
Adoption of Allen’s epithet aside, this is one thing that faithful Catholic could agree with Borst about. That is, a faithful Catholic could not agree with Murphy in his very concise articulation of Catholic dissenters’ version of Enlightenment rationalism. This rationalism assumes that reason must have the last word with regard to truth. In other words, divine revelation must be subordinated to reason and reason alone can finally determine whether a “proposition” presented by divine revelation can be true or not. For the Catholic rationalist dissenter, anyone who would disagree with this “thinking” is a fideist.
This is a fallacious contention. As the Church authoritatively taught at the First Vatican Council, and happily enough reason itself would dictate, reason, rather, must subordinate itself to faith. This is eminently reasonable, especially for one who claims to hold the Catholic faith. This is so because God, Who is author of all truth, is omnipotent and omniscient. Therefore, by definition if He reveals anything to us He must reveal the Truth. Since He has the power to reveal Himself in such a way that He can overcome human limitations to understanding and He can overcome the possibility of error in its transmittal, one may not appeal to these limitations as necessary justification for the contention that reason must take priority over faith. The Church has witnessed to the truth from the beginning, that God has endowed His Church with the gift of the Holy Spirit to keep it pure in Truth. Thus, as John Paul the Great points out in Fides et ratio, divine revelation is the most certain of all knowledge.
This is not the same as saying that faith is irrational. Faith is supra-rational. The difference here is that one can never find a contradiction to reason in authentic Church teachings, but some may go beyond reason–the Trinity for example. It is not fideism because one is not required to accept anything that contradicts reason. But neither is the Catholic faith rationalism because one cannot justifiably reject an authoritative teaching because he cannot “prove” it to himself through reason alone.
Contra Borst’s insinuation, authentic Catholicism (which he terms evangelical Catholicism) is “a religion with a brain.” We can attain the truth through thinking though we cannot attain every truth of faith through reason alone. As a matter of fact, it is because faithful Catholics think that we realize we err if we attempt to abuse our faculty of reason in order to rationalize why the Church is wrong and we are right on teachings to which we are unwilling to conform our intellects and wills.
As the fall semester commences tomorrow at De Paul University, Professor Finkelstein faces the chances of being arrested as he is expected to try to return to his old office in order to teach his Political Science course. On Monday, there were accusations made by University officials that accuse him of demonstrating “threatening and discourteous behavior. “
Peter Kirstein’s blog claims a Chicago Tribune article reported that there was inappropriate behaviour on the part of Dr Finkelstein that included harassment and intimidation of university personnel.
St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse explains why he’s intrigued by De Paul’s willingness to defend one kind of orthodoxy while, at the same time, allowing other heterodoxy’s.
UPDATE 09/05: The long-running confrontation between embattled professor Norman Finkelstein and DePaul University ended today without the dramatics he had promised.
.jpg)
