Catholic Blizzards

For over 25 years (1950-1976), Josef Pieper was professor of philosophical anthropology at the University of Munster. As professor emeritus, he continued to lecture at the university for another 20 years past that. For over 60 years, he taught Plato and Thomistic philosophy and theology. He was awarded the Balzan Prize in philosophy, and the Ehrenring. His 1966 classic, The Four Cardinal Virtues, was actually a compilation of earlier essays written in the 1950s. This book is so thorough, clear and concise that it is considered a standard text in both undergraduate and graduate theology and philosophy programs.

Why do I mention Pieper? Because Josef Pieper described Chris West's teachings as Manichean long before Chris West was ever born.

I have documented elsewhere how both John Paul II and Thomas Aquinas both directly contradict Chris West's cult teachings and pseudo-Catholic theology. But, rather than acknowledging that he is wrong, Chris continues to mis-represent both John Paul II and Thomas, insisting that the clear words of the Pope and the Angelic Doctor do not mean what they say.

For instance, although both Pope John Paul II and the Angelic Doctor describe continence as a virtue, West insists it is not. In order to make his case, he studiously avoids the passages in which both men specifically name continence a virtue, instead pointing his acolytes towards passages which have little or nothing to do with the virtue at all.

West insists that sex is the means by which everything is spiritualized, and he further insists that there can be no real virtue without this spiritualization. Josef Pieper was aware of this tendency in Catholic thought, and he had very specific things to say about it:

In The Four Cardinal Virtues, Pieper devotes an entire section to a discussion of the two forms of chastity. In it, he differentiates between chastity as temperentia and chastity as continentia.

As we already know, and Pieper explains, the perfected virtue of temperance and moderation is chastity (temperentia). In temperentia, the sensual appetite is in the habit of directing itself towards the good. In contrast, the unperfected virtue of chastity (continentia) is "not yet a natural inclination of being, neither has as yet grown firm roots in the existential core of man. This second mode of chastity is not the perfected virtue of temperance and moderation, but a strenuous control... the first is less perfect than the second, because by the former, the directing power of reason has been able to mold only the conscious will, but not yet the sensual urge, whereas by the latter will and urge are both stamped with 'rational order'(Summa Theologica II, II 155, 4 ad3)."

Pieper goes on to note that unchastity through mere lack of control is actually less pernicious than unchastity through temperentia. The merely uncontrolled can be recalled to order and repentance is quick, whereas the solidified disposition that is temperentia is hard to change and represents real malice. According to Pieper, who is summarizing Aquinas, "One who is merely uncontrolled is not unchaste, even though he acts unchastely." (italics in original, cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 7, 9, 1151a).

Now, if that were all Pieper had to say, I wouldn't bother to make this post. While that alone would be a direct attack on West's idea that continence is not a virtue, the fact that West
(a) is wrong on this point and
(b) refuses to discuss any of the erroneous positions he holds with anyone capable of refuting him
is not exactly news.

But there is more.
Josef Pieper isn't done.
The whole discussion of how the two forms of chastity get distorted just ticks Pieper off.
He has a soapbox, and he climbs on it just a few pages later.
This is page 167 of the 1966 edition of his work:

"Unlike all other virtues, it has always been the strange fate of the virtue of temperance and moderation, especially in its aspect of chastity, not to be valued and practiced or scorned and ridiculed more or less at its face value, but to be overestimated and overvalued in a very specific sense. This is something altogether unique. There have, of course, always been theoretical discussions about the hierarchy of the virtues, and one or the other has been shifted to a higher rank. But the stubborn and really quite fanatical preference given to temperentia, especially to chastity, which runs through the whole history of Christian doctrine as a more or less hidden undercurrent or counter current, has a very special aspect. No one, at any rate, has attached to justice or prudence or to any of the three theological virtues such an emphatic and evidently not simply factual, but emotionally charged evaluation.

Of course, there would not be the slightest objection against such an evaluation per se - for strictly speaking, virtues as such cannot be overrated. But here we are speaking of an evaluation and overevalutation based on a false premise; of an evaluation, therefore, which implies a misunderstanding of what is supposedly valued so highly. And against this we must object strongly.

In the province of temperentia as we have said before, it is man's attitude toward creation which is decided, and most incisively. And the 'wrong premise' upon which rest the overevaluation and erroneous values given to temperentia in general and chastity in particular amounts to this, namely, the explicit or implied opinion that the sensual reality of the whole of creation, and above all the nonspiritual element in man himself, is actually evil. To sum up: the 'wrong premise' is an explicit, or more often, an implicit, even unconscious and unintended, Manichaeism."

Although Pieper is directing his anger towards people like Tertullian, it is clear from the passage that if we were to give him Chris West's assertion that mere continence is not a virtue, he would undoubtedly send West to join Tertullian.

After all, West has clearly demonstrated a "stubborn and really quite fanatical preference given to temperentia."

Pieper goes on in this section to explain in greater detail why West is so wrong to do this (p. 168).
Nearly every word can be applied to our good friend, Chris:

"[The erroneous idea concerning] The specifically human task, or better still, the specifically Christian task, would consist in rising above this entire 'lower' sphere and mounting by ascetic practice [for West, we rise above this lower sphere through sex, but sensuality and perverse asceticism are really two sides of the same coin. Indeed, Pieper follows Aquinas example in discussing fasting and sensuous touch in adjoining sections.], to a purely spiritual way of life. Not only do fasting, vigils and sexual continence [or in West's case, sex, sex, and sex] take on a very special importance from this basic approach, but they move necessarily into the center of attention of the man striving for perfection. This evaluation, however shares and indeed intensifies the errors of its original; and despite all outward similarity, it has as little to do with the Christian evaluation of those three things [or that one thing] as the heresies of the Manichees, the Montanists, and the Cathari have to do with the Catholic dogma that proclaims that created reality is good in all its spheres, and is not subject to the arbitrariness of human evaluation; indeed, it is the basis and the point of departure of all evaluations as well as of all realization of value. " (cf. II, II, 130, 1, cf also II, II, 133, 1, Car. 1 - plus a quote from Thomas which indicates this attitude is a sin. Emphasis added)

Now, in order to quiet the West cultists ahead of time, if you read the rest of the section on chastity and unchastity, it's pretty clear that Pieper is no prude. He footnotes Malachi about there being something divine being in human seed, and points out that Thomas forbids a man from fasting to the extent that it interferes with his virility (yes, he even provides the necessary Thomistic footnotes).

Josef Pieper was teaching TOB long before JP II wrote a word, and he did it better, in the sense that he's a lot easier to read (and a lot tougher to distort). In fact, it would be absurd to believe that John Paul II would have been unfamiliar with, or uninfluenced by, one of the leading Thomists in Europe, a man who was teaching just a few hundred miles from Krakow.

So, we can now add to the long list of unanswered problems with the Chris West cult, the problem of Manicheanism masquerading as Catholic Faith.

West, of course, will respond as he always has - with silence.

When the original charges were leveled against him by his own teachers, he remained quiet while directing his shills to argue that this was a discussion more suited to the journals.

Months later, when he finally held a public interview on Al Kresta, his only response to his critics was to say that only ivory-tower academics who publish in journals had a problem with his teachings.

Likewise, his shills began by insisting that his former teachers' did not adequately substantiate their charges against West.

Yet, when they were asked to substantiate their own assertions that West's teachings were grounded in the ancient teaching of the Church, his supporters suddenly... disappeared.

Chris West has very few cards, but he plays them skillfully. Thousands of Catholics have been talked into sending him millions of dollars to promote a quasi-Catholic Faith, while West and his acolytes reap the monetary rewards.

He's the Al Gore of Catholic theology.
How long will it be before the blizzard hits?

Shut Up, He Explained

Years ago, pro-aborts came up with an ingenious argument that makes them look like saints while forcing their critics into silence: "I don't believe in forcing my opinions on others." It's the pro-abort version of, "I would like to nominate myself for the Humblest Person of the Year Award." If the individual spouting the line didn't believe in forcing his opinions on others, then why am I being lectured about how to treat others? Why is he forcing his opinion on me? The line is nothing but a gilded claim to victim status and one-upmanship combined into one concise phrase. "I don't want to listen to you. I'm so much holier and better than you. I have higher standards. Would you just shut up?" If the speaker were honest, he would say this instead. Unfortunately, it is less concise, and the speaker would look like a pompous ass if he did. So, from a strategic standpoint, the pro-abort argument is really much more satisfying. It's a real shame when Catholics get involved in similar lines of reasoning. I've already pointed out Catholics like Mark Shea who are partial to this argument, and I've noted that it is also a favorite of the defenders of Chris West. That's sad. But it's really disappointing when a Catholic bishop engages in it. Take, for instance, John Allen's applause when Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas used essentially this argument to defend his style of episcopal leadership:

"We need to be self-critical and realize that no one of us has the only approach to Catholicism," Farrell said. (His address was published in Origins in August). "Honest debate, not confrontation -- true dialogue where we seek to understand the other, not facile condemnation -- should be the overarching way we move forward."

"The word 'heretic' has been reserved for precious few people in our Catholic tradition," Farrell said, rejecting what he called "verbal fratricide" and a tendency to become "smug, dismissive and righteous" about the Catholic intellectual tradition.

"No theologian, or professor or pope, has ever had or ever will have all the answers to what it means to be authentically and fully Catholic," Farrell said.

Now, how a bishop chooses to lead a diocese is his own business. I am not qualified to tell him that he's right or wrong, although I do have the canonical right to offer an opinion on what it looks like to the man in the pew. Indeed, I even have a duty to do so. But, if I am to take Bishop Farrell at his word, isn't it incumbent on me to help him engage in a little self-criticism? Then let's! 

First, I don't remember seeing his sentiment laid out in any Magisterial document. Not one. Certainly we see Scripture say that we should always be prepared to give a defense of the Faith, but always in gentleness and reverence. There are LOTS of Magisterial documents that put forth that sentiment. But that's not what Bishop Farrell says. He doesn't say that we should be gentle and reverent when defending the Faith or living it out. He says "No one of us has the only approach to Catholicism." 

 Now, pardon me Bishop, but what the heck does THAT mean? Does it mean that many different orthodox spiritualities are available to the orthodox Catholic: Franciscan vs. Dominican vs. Carmelite vs.... well, you get the picture? If so, then who would argue with that? It's a strawman to say that anyone would. Does he mean to say that, given several options on how to proceed in specific situations, there is often room for differences in prudential judgement? Again, who argues against this proposition? I don't think I've ever met anyone who did. He wants "honest debate not confrontation." Is he engaged in honest debate by setting up straw men? And, leaving the straw aside for the moment, isn't THAT a prudential decision? Who determines what is "honest dialogue" versus "confrontation"? I've been engaged in honest dialogue with other people which third parties thought were confrontations - both of us had to set the mistaken party straight and point out that we were just having a strenuous discussion. I've been engaged in dialogues with other people that were the very picture of decorum but were not at all honest, and then been congratulated on how well everyone in the situation had handled it. 

But leave THAT aside and let's just look at confrontation. What, exactly, is wrong with confrontation? Confrontation has a long history in the Catholic Faith, and no one familiar with her history would deny this. The Crusades were built around very pointed confrontation, as was every military engagement with the Muslims. Who would you rather be? St. Louis, King of France, on Crusade against the Muslim, or Cardinal Richelieu, the man who made common cause with Muslims against other Catholics in order to advance the interests of France? I will note only that the ecumenism Richelieu brought to the Catholic-Muslim engagement did not make him a candidate for sainthood, while St. Louis' armed confrontation against the Muslims did not detract from his. 

Think of the numerous synods and ecumenical councils of the Church in which bishops confronted laymen, priests and bishops (mostly priests and bishops, btw), condemning them to exile, imprisonment and the burning of all their works. The bishops who condemned the heretics sure thought they had the answer to how to live the Catholic life, and they sure thought the persons they condemned as exiled heresiarchs did not. Even the famously even-tempered Aquinas got fed up with his opponents when they tried to distort the Faith and his defenses. He's a doctor of the Church. And let's not even get started on whether every martyr of the Church was involved in dialogue or confrontation. Indeed, if we went far enough back, we could even use the open, honest debate techniques that Jesus and His prophet, John the Baptist, modeled for us: "Blind guides! Blind hypocrites! You den of vipers! Who told YOU you could escape the coming destruction! Fools! You make your proselytes TWICE the sons of perdition that YOU are!" 

Or would Bishop Farrell find John, Jesus and Paul distasteful? Did they engage in outmoded and condemned confrontation? Sadly, John the Baptist would not gain many modern bishops' approval. Heck, I've heard one Midwestern bishop tell a public audience that he wouldn't want St. Paul in his diocese - too confrontational. But by ignoring these and many more examples that could be brought forward, aren't the good bishops being "smug, dismissive and righteous" about the Catholic tradition? If "[n]o theologian, or professor or pope, has ever had or ever will have all the answers to what it means to be authentically and fully Catholic," (odd how he left bishops out of the list) then why should I pay any attention to Bishop Farrell's opinion on the matter? As he himself admits, he's likely to be wrong in his opinion. If no one has the answer, then he doesn't have the answer. If he doesn't have the answer, and doesn't have any confidence that an answer can be reached, then why talk with him at all? If he's right, he's useless. If he's wrong, he should be ignored. So what is his point again? The point of dialogue is to reach a conclusion from which a judgement can be made. It is not just to natter on endlessly. If I wanted endless, mindless chatter, I would turn on the television. Or read Richard McBrien. 

So why would anyone say anything so mind-numbingly vapid as our good bishop did in this instance? From a standard of basic logic, I don't know. Don't ask me - talk to someone else. I have no answer, nor any confidence that a reasonable answer can be provided. But, if we throw basic logic aside and realize that he was just going for style points, the answer is a lot more clear. The good bishop prefers semantic fratricide, which is oh-so-much-better than verbal fratricide.... Or.... something..... 

Now, as I say, he has the right to say that. He is bishop, after all. But even if he has the right to say it, I don't have to like the victim-saint combo that he gilds himself with as he does it. No one has all the right prudential answers... except him? Please. If you were Pope, I would at least consider the possibility before dismissing it as a violation of the Faith. As it is... The great irony of the thing is this: John Allen, the man who applauds Bishop Ferrell's double-speak, emphasized the importance of striking a balance. How did Allen do this? Well, by personally condemning "Taliban Catholicism." Sigh. Now, Allen protests that such Catholics are present on the left and the right. What he doesn't do is demonstrate why confrontation is a problem. Everyone assumes, as if it is a commonly agreed idea, that confrontation is not good, condemnation is not good. And they will confront and condemn anyone who says otherwise. Got that? 

We all like to judge others (heck, that's what this column is about, ain't it?) and we all like to think that we're the ones on the high ground. As George C. Scott said in "Patton" - "Hell, yes, I'm a prima donna. I admit it! The thing I don't like about Monty (British General Montgomery) is that he's a prima donna and he WON'T admit it!" I've always admired that attitude. I prefer Patton's confrontation of the truth to a "dialogue" over mindless piffle.

Desecration

On January 15, 2010, the altar, sanctuary and sacred space of St. James Church in Chinatown was desecrated by several rock bands that had been, for whatever reason, invited to perform there by the pastor.

When video of the event hit the web, the Catholic blogosphere exploded in outrage. The priest, Father Walter Toneletto, almost immediately apologized, saying he had been misled by the organizers. He avers that he is actually the pastor of another parish, which merged with this one within the last two years, that he "lived downtown" and was unaware of the problem because he went home before the event, that he was deeply sorry, and that others were saying evil things about him.

So, in Christian charity, many people argue that we must accept the priest's word and turn our anger towards the evil men who deceived him.

This may well be true.
However, during the uproar, several questions were left unanswered.

1) The parish has an activity hall. How did the band promoters manage to deceive the pastor into giving the bands access to the sanctuary instead of putting them in the activity hall?

2) "Ah!" one might argue, "The space is such that by giving access to the activity hall, they automatically have access to the sanctuary!" Really?

First, there's no evidence that this is true. Indeed, I would be absolutely shocked to discover that an extensive renovation in 2002 would not include security measures that provide for exactly this kind of lock-off between sanctuary space and activity hall.

Second, the videos of the event (most of them since pulled by the fans who posted them), show the rock bands performing on a stage that appeared to be specially built and adapted to the sacred space, with the wooden supports specifically cut so that the platform projected out over the steps of the sanctuary.

How did such an extension get measured, cut and built unless the priest knew the bands would set up in the sanctuary and around the altar ahead of time? It could be true, but if it is, I must say, these deceivers are really, really expert, because they apparently snuck in, measured the space, pre-fabbed the stage, assembled it and started their shows without the pastor having a clue.

3) Speaking of which, what parish staff, if any, had control of the keys and supervision of the event space all evening long? How did they deceive the parish representatives at the event into going along with it? Who opened up the church, helped out with the organization that night, cleaned up and locked up? Especially if there is no parish staff besides the priests, as the parish bulletins seem to indicate? Or are the pastors at this Manhattan church in the habit of letting keys to the sanctuary float freely among the parishioners? What a curious custom for otherwise suspicious New Yorkers to have!

4) Father Toneletto claims he went downtown to his rectory, and was thus unaware that the event had raged out of control. As it happens, the church is also downtown, less than a block away from his rectory, in fact. Now, it is true that city noise can be impressive, but his rectory is not all that far away, is it?

If he had been called away to a sick parishioner or a dinner or something, that would be understandable. But he shows an amazing disinterest in what happens inside of his own sacred space, doesn't he? How did the band organizers deceive him into displaying this uncharacteristic level of disinterest?

5) Indie events are known for being borderline illegal, as they frequently overflow the permitted occupancy space for fire code and engage in other illegal activity. However, this event had an open bar for an hour and a half before the bands started playing, and was also BYOB. This was advertised on the internet. I've never met a priest who wasn't aware of dram shot law and the legal impact it could have on his church and himself. So, what was on the church fliers advertising the event? The church bulletin? Does the church have a liquor license?

How did the band organizers deceive the priest into allowing, or at least not knowing, about ninety minutes of free alcohol in the back of the church prior to the bands even going on stage?

In the spirit of the ubiquitous CRAP training (Children Really Are Protected) that every parish in the nation now foists on its parishioners, we should learn how such deception is done so it cannot be repeated on other priests, or on the laity, fools that we are. Indeed, training in how to avoid deception by roving bands of juvenile teenagers should probably be required of every volunteer in every parish in the country.

So, if Father Toneletto could describe in exact detail how he was so cleverly deceived, he would go a long way towards helping other priests, and scads of parishioners, avoid this problem.

But there are a couple of further questions:

6) When the news first started gaining steam on the net, nearly a week after the event, someone responded by sending out an e-mail in support of the parish, insisting the event never took place, that it had been canceled before anything actually happened. Who would do such a thing?

Certainly the indie fans aren't that stupid - they were posting video, photo, and blog entries about the event all over the internet afterwards and happy as clams about it. Only someone who never thought about the internet, never accessed the internet, never looked on the internet, would try to send out an e-mail denying the event took place.

7) If you do a search on Walter Toneletto, you'll find that a priest with the same name had been stationed up in Montreal, some years back, and he had a very big reputation for working with the youth. "If we give them space, they will come in and start working," says Tonelotto. "But if we do everything our way, the old way, then they stay out."

Is it the same Father Toneletto?
I don't know.

But I've worked in enough parishes to know that "youth-oriented" pastors are notorious for violating rubrics left and right in the name of "being pastoral." They tend to view the sanctuary as a stage and themselves as performers. Indeed, I once heard a priest with that attitude tell another priest who was vesting to say Mass, "Go break a leg."

Youth-oriented pastors are very big on having everyone gather in the sanctuary and hold hands around the altar while an execrable band plays even more execrable music. I once worked in a diocese run by an archbishop with a very strong orthodox reputation. Yet one of the largest parishes in his diocese held a regular "rock band Mass" once a month, in which the rock band played in the sanctuary during the liturgy, substituting their own self-composed music for the Psalm response.

Even though this was a gross violation of the liturgy, the pastor and the bishop were apparently fine with it. After all, it was "for the youth" (cue tears and violins). As far as I know, it's still going on today, a decade later (and this was not the same diocese, or even the same state, where I heard the "break a leg" comment).

Conclusion:
I don't personally think there's any question that Father Toneletto knew full well the bands were going to be in the sanctuary, that there would be beer, that their would be dancing in the aisles. He just never imagined that anyone would videotape it or that the video would end up on the internet.

Once that happened, he was a smart enough priest to realize that the best way out of the situation was to roll over and expose his soft underbelly while proclaiming his ignorance. The constant theme to his responses is, "I was mis-led and people have deliberately mis-represented me to others. I'm the victim here."

The archbishop, having publicly accepted Father Toneletto's version of the events and having studiously ignored the difficult questions surrounding his explanation of deception and deceit, clearly figures the public scandal is enough punishment for the pastor, and is betting the pastor has enough on the ball not to set himself up for another fall like this.

Besides which, the archbishop is new and he presides over New York City, where half the priests are insane, and most of the Catholic population are in various states of formal heresy, promoting abortion, contraception, etc. The American northeast , which has the highest concentration of Catholics in the country, also elects the highest percentage of pro-abort legislators. Father Toneletto is probably one of the more self-limiting of the self-destructive priests the archbishop has in his employ.

So, there's no point in pursuing this situation further. The archbishop has other, more pressing problems to deal with. Can you imagine being a bishop in a diocese where the sacrilege of the altar is one of your less pressing problems? Clearly, however, this problem has pretty much solved itself, so he's moving on. I will too.

Now, am I being uncharitable in reaching these conclusions?
Good Catholics can differ about that.

I don't mind giving someone the Christian charity of the doubt, but I refuse to ignore evidence of culpability that has not been explained away. Ignoring evidence, and admitting an inordinate, indeed, an unjustified, level of "Christian doubt" is part of what allowed the sexual abuse crisis to happen.

Sacrilege is worse then sexual abuse.
Sexual abuse merely offends the body, sacrilege is an attempt to directly offend the august dignity of God Himself. Indeed, sexual abuse involving baptized or otherwise consecrated people is itself a sacrilege, and makes the offense worse. That's why sexual abuse by priests is objectively worse than sexual abuse by school teachers.

Priests are consecrated to God's use in a way that school teachers are not.
When a priest commits sexual offenses, indeed, when even any baptized person commits sexual offenses, he commits sacrilege by the act.

Sanctuaries are consecrated to God's use and the use of the whole people of God.
This level of sacrilege is somewhat equivalent, but worse, than the sexual abuse of all the parishioners simultaneously.

I am glad that the priest has expressed remorse, that he has canceled future events of this kind, that he is holding a prayer vigil of reparation. No matter what his motivation - and I don't doubt that he is sincerely repentant - these are all good things to do.

So, why am I writing this?
I'm posting one last time about this event in order to lay the groundwork for my next post, the contemplation of a larger viewpoint within the Church that is beginning to take shape. I'll write about the exact dimensions of this in the near future.

An Open Letter to Powerline Blog

To Paul Mirengoff,

Why would you hope that Brit Hume's recommendations to Tiger Woods, namely that Tiger dump Buddhism and become a Christian, be made "privately" next time?

Your entire blog is devoted to public analysis of the best political solutions available to the country and its leaders.

You believe your commentary to be a service, even though there is enormous disagreement among educated people about exactly what constitutes a "best political solution."

Why should the best religious solutions to various problems be any less publicly discussed?

The only reason it would be unnecessary is if there were no "best religious solutions" to various problems. Obviously, that would be true only if religion had no impact on the public sphere, no intrinsic merit. If all religions were the same in its effects, or if every religion and theology were similarly useless, then there would need be no public discussion of which religion is best suited to dealing with various public problems.

However, if various religions DO have intrinsic merit or impact, then it stands to reason that some will be more meritorious than others. Indeed, from your commentary, you seem to hold certain Western religious traditions in much higher esteem than a certain 7th century Middle-Eastern set of religious traditions.

So why should we publicly discuss only the intrinsic merits of various political or economic worldviews, but never publicly discuss the merits of religious worldviews? Especially given that Powerline has already done that?

You are certainly too intelligent to trot out the tired argument that religion starts wars.
Clearly, so do economics and politics. If we cut religion out of the public sphere on those grounds, then economics and politics would likewise be verboten.

You may argue that our country is built on some kind of "church-state" separation.
But again, you know perfectly well that
a) this is nowhere found in the Constitution
and
b) the person who put forward this theory (Thomas Jefferson) was not present at the framing of the Constitution - indeed, he had to have the document explained to him by James Madison, if I recall correctly. Furthermore, Jefferson was notoriously biased AGAINST various religious tenets, so he's hardly a fair witness to what the Constitutional framers intended in this regard.

You might argue that the country is pragmatically built around these Jeffersonian principles regardless of their Constitutional presence, but even that isn't true, since the legal principles only became firmly enshrined as a result of LBJ's shenanigans to get re-elected and stay re-elected.
These "principles" are arguably less than 50 years old.

Indeed, isn't your commentary against Brit Hume's public endorsement of Christianity itself a kind of religious commentary - the kind of commentary you so detest in others?

Aren't you essentially saying, "I can engage in religious commentary. Namely I can make the religious recommendation that others not publicly recommend a religious belief I don't happen to share."

I hope you're smarter than that.
I also hope you're less hypocritical than that.

Oh, George!

After reading the recent story by the Belleville News-Democrat on Bishop Braxton's requirement that (horrors!) Catholics actually kneel at the consecration, I thought it worthwhile to offer the journalist who wrote the piece a bit of a critique. Here is the exchange:

Mr. Pawlaczyk,

Why did you go to Frank Flinn at Washington University for an opinion on the Catholic practice of kneeling during the Eucharist?

Is Flinn Catholic?
It doesn't look like he is, so what would he know about this issue?

According to the Wash. U. biography at:
http://news-info.wustl.edu/sb/page/normal/54.html
Flinn is an adjunct who specializes in church-state relations.
That is, he doesn't necessarily know ANYTHING about liturgy.

Indeed, asking him for an opinion on liturgy is similar to asking a podiatrist about how best to treat a brain tumor, or asking an environmental lawyer to comment on a criminal homicide case.

It verges on malpractice for him to even voice an opinion.
Going to a man like Flinn does not help BND's reputation.

I have a graduate degree in Catholic theology.
I teach religion at the Art Institute of Dallas, Texas.
I have lectured world-wide on various aspects of Catholic theology and liturgy.
I grew up in Belleville Diocese.
I used to deliver the BND, as did every child in our 8-child family.

Say "hey" to Jay Tebbe for me - my brother and I were part of his sales "boy crew" when we took advantage of the demise of the St. Louis paper, lo!, these many years past back when he was in Circulation Department in the late 70's/early 80's.
I attended Althoff high school with his sister.
I'm pretty sure he would remember me.

As a Catholic theologian, I can state without equivocation that :
a) the bishop is perfectly correct to insist on this physical movement in Mass, as it is central to Catholic worship,
b) the priests who oppose the bishop on this matter are not in union with the Catholic Church on this issue,
c) the pastors who have failed to instruct and lead their parishioners on this are not in conformance with the Catholic teaching (orthodoxy) or Catholic worship (orthopraxy).

If you ever need opinion on a point of Catholic theology, I would be happy to provide it. My contact information is below.
The phone number is toll-free.

His answer was rather impressive if tendentious:

Dear Reader,
 I am not interested in a person's private religious beliefs. Whether for a newspaper story or anything else.
 Flinn has written widely on religion. That's why I went to him and to Father Driscoll at Notre Dame.
 I am always looking for an objective point of view, but not necessarily that of a devout Catholic. If Catholicism means that you cannot raise questions that might, and I emphasize might, suggest that the church hierarchy could be wrong, then there is no point in seeking the opinion of  a devout Catholic who will not tolerate such questions.
 I guess the reason why there was a Reformation is that some Catholics did raise questions. Non Catholics know a lot about the Catholic faith, just as non-brain surgeons may write critically about brain surgery or those who are not Jewish may write authoritatively about Judaism. Or, to put it more bluntly, one not need be a witch to write about paganism.
 Thanks for your interest.
 George Pawlaczyk
Isn't that nice? Not only is he demonstrating a remarkable support for Protestant theology (rah-rah the Reformation), he also puts it "bluntly, one need not be a witch to write about paganism." I assume that he didn't feel the need to be a Catholic (witch) to write about Catholicism (paganism). I've never seen anyone directly compare Catholicism with witchcraft or paganism unless he were part of a fundamentalist ecclesial community, but here we have a "journalist" for a one of the two major metro newspapers in the St. Louis area making exactly that comparison.

As you may imagine, I felt he had missed the point.

Mr. Pawlaczyk,

When the story is about religion, a person's private religious beliefs
is likely to have bearing on their public statements, yes?

For instance, wouldn't Richard Dawkins' private religious beliefs affect
how he commented on this story?

Same for Christopher Hitchens, yes?

What makes you think Frank Flinn or Father Driscoll would be different?

Why wouldn't THEIR personal religious beliefs, or lack thereof, affect
how they commented on the story?
What makes Flinn's opinion "objective" - especially given that he has no
expertise in liturgy?

What test did Flinn pass for him to be rated "objective"?

Would you be willing to allow me to take the same test, to see if I can
pass as "objective" in your estimation?

Isn't it at least fair to give me a shot at it?

Sir, I was an atheist for over a decade.
What makes you think a devout Catholic would NOT "tolerate such questions?"
I not only tolerate such questions, I enjoy them immensely, and
encourage them from others.

The questions aren't the problem - it's the biased answers you're getting.

Look, I lecture on world religions at the university level.
I've gotten rave reviews from Wiccans, Lutherans, Baptists, Catholics -
you name it.
All of them have taken my classes, all of them agree that I treat their
faiths fairly.

But in order to treat a faith fairly, you have to acknowledge what it
actually TEACHES.
You can't just cherry-pick your quotes to get the predetermined answer
you want.

Every faith has people who claim to be part of it, yet those people
don't actually buy into what the documents of their own faith teach.

I've taught various aspects of theology and religion in general and
Catholic faith in particular since 1997.

I've met very few Catholics who understand the history and theology of
Catholic faith.

I've never met any non-Catholic who really understood what Catholicism
was about.

Indeed, it is exceedingly rare for anyone to even be able to define the
difference between theology and religion, much less the importance, or
lack thereof, of various liturgical beliefs and practices in the various
faith traditions.

I'm not impugning your reporting - you did the best you could.
I'm just pointing out that there are better sources.

For instance, you didn't provide any quotes from experts who supported
the bishop's position.
Certainly such people would not be THAT hard to find, eh?
Or is there NO recognized expert who supports the bishop in this instance?

I am pointing out that there is at least one - me.

I could find others for you if you like, full professors at various
Catholic universities (and not just adjunct professors at non-Catholic
universities). Even a phone call to the USCCB would undoubtedly find
SOMEONE there who supported the bishop.

If you want to report objectively, and I'm sure you do, isn't it fair at
least to include a quote or two from such voices?
But, alas, the idea was more than his little brain could handle...

Dear Reader,
You just cannot base a newspaper story center (sic) on religious beliefs. That would go nowhere and would be a kind of invasion of privacy. You will always believe, I gather, that whatever a bishop says or does in the name of religion is correct, because the Bible or church practice so decrees it. There would be no room for discussion.
 That's why reporters like myself avoid discussions of faith. You believe what you believe. And I have my private beliefs.
 As for the manner in which Bishop Braxton went about informing his priests to enforce the kneeling rule, that subject is best left to persons who can comment without basing their remarks totally in faith. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.
 If you need more on this, I suggest calling our executive editor Jeff Couch at 618-239-2551. You can feel free to quote any my comments to you when talking with Jeff. Thanks.
 George Pawlaczyk

Isn't that quaint? He wants me to PHONE someone and quote him as I please. Phone... When was the last time you PHONED someone to discuss an e-mail conversation? I can't remember ever having done so. I've FORWARDED e-mails on to people. I've entered into and left e-mail discussions, bulletin board discussions, forum discussions, Facebook and Twitter discussions. But PHONED someone about any of these?

No, I don't believe I've done it.
And the man is so backward, he didn't even provide the necessary e-mail address.
He just gave me a PHONE NUMBER. :)

ROTFLMAO!!!

So, I replied to George.

George,

Your story was ABOUT religious belief.
So if you can't base a story on religious belief, why did you write the story?

I'm not asking you to expose the personal religious beliefs of Flinn or Fr. Driscoll.
I'm asking why you were unable to find any experts who discussed the situation in the bishop's favor.
It's not that hard.

Again, I offer my own services as a Catholic professor who teaches world religions at the Art Institute of Dallas.
I have lectured both in the United States and in Europe on various aspects of Catholic theology and liturgy.
I have received rave reviews from Wiccans, Lutherans, Baptists, etc., on my presentation of various faith traditions.
I have written books about Catholic faith that have been critically acclaimed.
I have Belleville ties, having grown up in Belleville, delivered the News-Democrat as a teen, and I was educated largely in the metro area.
I worked with Jay Tebbe back when he was a truck driver, sold BND subscriptions with him in Cahokia, Granite City and the whole east metro area when the second-last St. Louis paper died back in the late-70's.

I offer you balance.

And, George, you gather incorrectly.

Catholics are not fundamentalists.
It is not at all unusual for bishops to be wrong.

Indeed, I have publicly told more than one priest and more than one bishop that he was wrong on various aspects of Catholic theology and praxis. In fact, I run a news website that regularly takes priests and bishops to task. It currently has a headline story about the Cincinnati archdiocese. The story simply documents that what the head of that diocese is saying about liturgy is directly contrary to what Rome says is necessary in regards to the liturgy.

I'm not asking for you to take sides,
I'm not asking for you to delve into anyone's private religious belief.
I'm asking you to give the reader enough information to make a comparison.
I'm pointing out that context is relevant, that the "experts" you chose were not necessarily qualified to comment.
I'm pointing to their public credentials to make that point.
By choosing who to quote, you gave a completely biased context to the Braxton story on kneeling in the Mass.

But George, you DID NOT avoid a discussion of faith with me.
Indeed, from your remarks to me, you obviously believe the Reformation was a good thing.
That means you carry a certain pro-Reformation bias which is necessarily an anti-bishop bias.
It clouds your reporting on matters of Catholic interest and it biased your story.

EVERYBODY has a bias, including you, including your experts, including me.
The point is, you gave a PARTICULAR bias to your story.
You did not attempt to balance it.
You went to at least one unqualified person (Frank Flinn) to get a money quote.

Furthermore, you say you want remarks that are not totally based in faith?
So, you're saying that Fr. Driscoll of Notre Dame is not basing his remarks in faith?
That's a remarkable aspersion to cast on a priest, wouldn't you say?

What have I said that makes you think I would base my remarks "totally in faith"?
As I indicated before, I'd be happy to take any test you want to give me for objectivity.
So far, you seem to have passed judgment on me without actually finding out where I am.

And, given that you are writing a story based PRECISELY on how total faith is supposed to be undertaken by a Catholic, I don't understand your response. How can you write a story about Catholic liturgy - when Catholics believe sacraments and liturgy (not preaching) to be the heart of their Faith - and insist on getting responses which are not "based totally in faith"?

When you go swimming, do you insist on not getting totally wet?
Do you refuse to interview Olympic swimmers because their remarks on the subject would be biased?

Finally, George, this is 2010.
That means we use e-mail, in order to make clear EXACTLY what was and wasn't communicated.
I haven't phoned anyone over this kind of conversation in over a decade.
I don't even own a telephone directory...
Asking me to phone your editor is ludicrous.
You are just perpetuating the stereotype of the "out of touch" journalist.

Sigh....

And, since he seemed no longer interested in the conversation, I forwarded the conversation to the editor, including his little bit about the Reformation and witchcraft, the bit George had conveniently cut out of the last e-mail...

Mr. Couch,

I'm copying you on this e-mail conversation.
George Pawlaczyk seems not to "get it" when it comes to the bias in the article he wrote.
I have offered my services as a university professor to be a resource for him, but he seems to think I'm a raving loon.

Please tell me if I'm crazy, or if George and I are talking past each other.
Please read from the bottom up.

And tell me, is it company policy to refer to someone you have a conversation with as "Dear Reader"?

It seems a bit off-putting, slightly condescending, and certainly silly, if you know the name of the person you are having a discussion with.

Steve

Conundrum

Did you ever notice?

People who are concerned about the destruction of the rain forests often invoke the possible loss of new pharmaceutical remedies for various diseases. We might lose a solution to our health problems as the plants are destroyed!

Yet when you point out that abortion destroys a possible new Einstein, or a new mind who might find the cure for cancer, that possibility is met with yawns.

I insist on personal autonomy for my sex and drugs, but not for your survival.

The Dog That Didn't Bark

In the Sherlock Holmes story Silver Blaze, a memorable exchange took place:

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

Now that another uproar has ignited over the activities of a Catholic model who happily stripped down for a PETA ad and invoked John Paul II to justify it, I would like to draw your attention to the curious silence of the Catholic sex therapist/theologian Christopher West.

Why is Chris silent about a Playboy pinup's run-in with a crucifix? After all, you may remember the spring of 2008, when Mr. West went on ABC's Nightline and waxed lyrical about Hugh Hefner, the founder of Playboy. West went on to claim he saw deep historical connections between Hugh Hefner and Pope John Paul II. His comments were so effusive that ABC dubbed him a Catholic sex-therapist.

His comments were so outrageous that his own instructors publicly disowned him and warned Catholics throughout the nation to disregard him.

Pennsylvania bishops were so enamored of him that they wrote a glowing review of his work, fit for a frame on the wall of the USCCB's latest lesbian consultant. Several of the people who earn money by his antics also joined in support.

While West himself denied any skills at sex therapy, many Catholics have agreed with ABC's assessment for years. Indeed, I first recall hearing West described as "a Catholic Dr. Ruth" in 2006, while standing in the corridor of a hotel in Kiev, Ukraine, conversing with a fellow Catholic speaker at an international family conference. At the time, I was struck by how succinctly the phrase described West's work.

Thus, given his history, it isn't easy to see why West has been silent on Joanna Krupa's decision to use nudity to promote the noble cause of PETA. Why hasn't he spoken up in favor of the damsel in distress and against the outrageously puritanical attitude of Bill Donahue and the Catholic League? Hasn't West already said:

Admittedly, living in a "pornified" culture makes it difficult to see the human body as anything other than an opportunity for lust. But this is a notion we must counter as Catholics. As St. Paul said, "To the pure all things are pure, but to the impure, nothing is pure" (Titus 1:15). The human body is not inherently pornographic. The human body is inherently "theo-graphic." It is meant to reveal and proclaim the mystery of God. This is precisely why John Paul II speaks of the body as a "theology."

Those who see Michelangelo’s nudes as an occasion of lust are, as Dr. Waldstein observed, in need of a serious transformation. Catholic artists should respond to our pornographic culture not by refusing to portray the human body in its nakedness, but, by portraying it rightly so that we can reclaim the glorious theological truth of our creation as male and female. [emphasis added]

Miss Krupa herself seemed to be channeling West's thoughts when she told TV Guide, "I respect [that] everyone has his own sensitivities. But I, like many, see no clash or contradiction between a partially nude body and a cross."

Why doesn't West come out swinging with a lovely invocation of John Paul II's Love and Responsibility in Krupa's defense?

"The human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty... Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness... Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person...The human body is not in itself shameful... Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person."

West loves to natter on about Adam's duty to protect Eve. Why doesn't he put his mouth where his money is and defend Joanna? Certainly Miss Krupa's pictorial depiction is "theo-graphic," isn't it Chris? She is dressed as one of the famous Raphael angels, after all.

Certainly her parts are covered at least as well as anything on the ceiling or altar wall of the Sistine Chapel.

Certainly the cross stands at the very center of Krupa's artistic representation.

Certainly the cause for which the picture has been rendered - the reduction of suffering in animals - is a good one. Isn't the Catholic Church opposed to inflicting cruelty and suffering on animals?

As West has famously opined, while claiming John Paul II's support, the pornography of an image like Krupa's comes from the distortions introduced by our puritanical culture and our puritanical little minds. It is our sinfulness and lust, our concupiscence which leads us to view such a beautiful "theo-graphic" image as something inappropriate.

If only we had the mind of Chris West, we would recognize Miss Krupa for the wonderful artistry she is!
It would be a shame to run from the image she has given us - we should gaze upon it with a holy glance, make it a point of revery, contemplate the beauty of God's image portrayed on our LCD flat-screens!

Indeed, it would not even be virtuous to run from this photo, or to avert our eyes from it! To do such a thing would violate what Aquinas taught us, and what John Paul II taught us! Continence of that sort is NEVER a virtue!

Gentlemen, I put it to you, is it not the case that Miss Krupa "reclaims the glorious theological truth of our creation as male and female"? How is what Krupa doing any different from the wonderful work Hugh Hefner did in reclaiming the naked body from our nasty puritanism, (a puritanical reading of American history Hefner himself imposed on us, and West ignorantly adopted as his own, but let's ignore that for the moment and focus on the Westian meme).

But, unlike the Dominicans, whose constant preaching gave them the nickname "the hounds of God" (from the Latin phrase "domine canes", God's dogs), West's preaching has fallen to silence here. Yet why would this be? West himself has often alluded to the fact that he believes he has a God-given ministry to speak out precisely in this kind of issue.

You are a teacher anointed by God, Mr. West!
This is a wonderful teaching moment!
It would be a sin for you to remain silent, wouldn't it?
Can't you explain how this is an (in)appropriate image?
For it certainly must be one or the other...

So, Mr. West, not to put too fine a point on it, but let's quote from your favorite book of Scripture:

And God called to Adam in the garden and said to him: Where art thou?

The New Ambrosian Rite

In 374 AD, the bishop of Milan died. The town was in great turmoil as debate began about who should succeed him. The Arian heretics wanted one man, the Catholics another. As the conflict in the cathedral became stormy, one man, an unbaptized catechumen, stepped forward to try to quell the dispute and bring order to the debate.

That man was the governor of the region, well-known and well-respected by all sides.
His name was Ambrose.

As the crowd listened to him and began to quiet down, a new shout went up, "Ambrose, bishop! Ambrose, bishop!" He wasn't even baptized, much less a priest, but he was seen as the only solution by both sides in the conflict. Ambrose was hurriedly baptized, confirmed, given first Eucharist, ordained deacon, priest and bishop within the space of three days. He ruled so effectively that his sanctity was a legend even before he died. His preaching brought St. Augustine into the Church.

Why do we recall all of this?

Because we have an anti-Ambrose in Canada, a sign of the evil times in which we live. And we also have a response from Rome that signals the kind of confidence Rome has in both her bishops and in her laity.

Within the last week, the bishop of Calgary has determined that, due to the H1N1 flu, he has the right to suppress the reception of the Eucharist on the tongue and has so decreed within his diocese. While other dioceses have strongly discouraged reception on the tongue, no bishop has had the moxy to actually attempt to entirely suppress this practice, for two very good reasons.

First, reception on the tongue while on the knees is the normal mode by which the Eucharist is to be received, a fact just reiterated within the last six months by Rome. The ability to receive standing and in the hand is actually an indult, a special exception made by Rome (and an exception eminently revocable by Rome) for particular dioceses.

Second, distribution on the tongue by someone who knows what he is doing is actually much LESS likely to transmit infection, as the priest's hand never touches the communicant's mouth.

When the FSSP, who offer the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in the diocese of Calgary, pointed out these two salutory facts, and added that this prohibition was a violation of their rubrics, the bishop of Calgary responded with great pastoral sensitivity to the spiritual needs of his people and the liturgical laws of the universal Church. He completely suppressed the celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass in his diocese. When asked on what authority he did this, given the statements from the Congregation for Divine Worship, he responded, "I am well aware of what the congregation decided but quite frankly, it is not their call. It is mine. "

It quite takes one's breath away.

A Little Extreme
So, why would the bishop of Calgary make such a ruling?
Well, let's just say the H1N1 flu is among the least of his reasons.

There are certain bishops who foolishly think that the release of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass is a "step backward" for the Church. They hew to the Novus Ordo Mass like a drowning captain clings to the rail of his sinking ship, unwilling to admit that their beloved is not doing the job it was intended to do.

Just as public schools cannot stand vouchers, and the US Postal Service cannot stomach Fedex, so Novus Ordo adherents cannot abide the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. It breaks a monopoly.

So, such bishops natter on about how they want to keep their dioceses from becoming a "Catholic ghetto", while ignoring the broken windows of liturgical abuse, the trashy music blaring from the boom-box choirs, and the shoddy architecture of the sub-standard housing which is the modern cafeteria-church. Like any slum-lord, these bishops don't want other gangs horning in on their territory, most certainly not the "gang from Rome."

But there is more to it than simple personal predilection.

By insisting he has the authority to do such a thing, the bishop of Calgary has made himself a test case, in the hopes that he will become a shining light unto the other bishops, that all may follow his example.

Seven With One Blow
You see, by suppressing the FSSP Mass, the Calgary bishop has struck at the heart of the authority of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, for that is where the Ecclesia Dei commission has found its new home. No bishop has the authority to suppress the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. The Calgary bishop claims he has precisely that authority.

The bishop of Calgary has also struck at the heart of the authority of the Congregation for Divine Worship, through which all liturgical modifications legitimately come. Reception on the tongue is the universal norm, a liturgical norm which can never be suppressed nor abrogated. The bishop of Calgary claims the right to abrogate it.

So, with one blow, the bishop has essentially defied the authority of not one, but TWO papal dicasteries. But it is worse than that.

The Holy Father released Summorum Pontificum and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass precisely in order to increase the probability of re-union with other Christians. Not only does it increase the probability that the SSPX separation will be healed, it has also been the stepping stone for reunion with traditional elements of the Anglican communion and, ultimately, for re-union with all the Orthodox Churches in the world. Literally within months of its release, the Orthodox Churches began flocking towards dialogue with Rome.

The bishop of Calgary has, by this action, therefore struck at the very heart of the Holy Father's initiative to bring unity to all Christian churches. If the Calgary option is allowed to stand, it will be a body blow against the possibilities of real reunion with a host of other true Christian churches.

And, with this virtually schismatic act by the bishop of Calgary, we now clearly see why the Holy Father released the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus. If you read through this document, you see a very peculiar thing, which is now clearly explained by the action in Calgary.

AC specifically allows individual Anglican communions within the Catholic Church to be headed by an "ordinary" who is not necessarily an ordained bishop. This is, to say the least, unprecedented. Indeed, given that Anglican orders are not valid, the fact is that every Anglican "priest" and "bishop" is really just a layman who dresses funny.

Yet these laymen, who have baptism as their only valid sacrament, will be treated as retired bishops and ordinaries in their own right - they will be given episcopal powers. The laymen who are the Anglican "priests" and "bishops" will be given their own liturgical rite.

True, they will all have to be properly ordained, but the rite is theirs, promised to them, before the consecrated oils touch their hands or their heads.

Not since Ambrose have laymen been raised to such a high level of authority so quickly.

Why would this new Ambrosian rite, the Anglican rite, be permitted?
Because the Holy Father can't trust his own bishops and he knows it.

Prophecy Fulfilled
If his own bishops were trustworthy, if the Holy Father were confident that most of his local bishops would treat the Anglicans with due respect for their rights as Catholics, he would not set up the additional machinery of the Anglican rite. But, as the Calgary bishop demonstrates, the Holy Father can't even trust his own bishops to treat Catholics with due honor and respect. How much honor would they give to filthy little Anglican converts (for that is essentially how many Catholic bishops view these - spit when you say it - traditionalists).

Why are laymen being given their own liturgical rite?
Because, unlike most of the world's Catholic bishops, these laymen actually understand and appreciate holy and beautiful things.

The irony is delicious. The Vatican II types who wanted laymen empowered are getting precisely that with the new Anglican rite. Not only are laymen being empowered, they are being treated as episcopal equals. The men and women who felt thrills go up their legs when they heard that Catholicity subsists in the Church, that elements of Catholicity exist even in Christian communities outside the visible bonds with Rome, have been justified. The new Anglican rite demonstrates that when the Holy Father needs people who have a truly Catholic perspective, he now has to go outside the visible Church to get them. Who said Vatican II wasn't prophetic?

Many people have commented on the fact that some of AC's provisions regarding the Anglican orders are transitional. For instance, treatment of lay people as if they were retired bishops will only last for the life of the current Anglican bishops. Yes, that's true. But it is also transitional in the sense that the current crop of Catholic bishops will likewise be dead before those "transitional" AC provisions are no longer necessary. The AC provisions aren't just waiting out the Anglican bishops, they are waiting out the Catholic bishops as well. Indeed, it cannot have escaped the notice of all Catholic bishops that they are being forced to treat laymen with episcopal deference. No doubt this has played some niggling role in Calgary's cavalry charge into the teeth of a German panzer division.

Obviously, the bishop of Calgary has picked a fight he cannot win. Rome will crush him like a bug. His suppression of normal Eucharistic reception and the FSSP is too outrageous, too schismatic, too much in violation of everything the Pope hopes to accomplish. If the Catholic Conference of Pennsylvania could force out a man like Bishop Martino because Martino was too holy for them, then the bishop of Rome can force out the bishop of Calgary because he's too unholy.

Calgary's probability of getting a new bishop in the next couple of years is now astronomically high, if only because bishops in other dioceses around the world are watching.
And so are the bishops in heaven.
We know which side St. Ambrose is on.

The Discipline

Throughout the history of the Church, the greatest of saints have regularly undertaken personal and severe mortifications in order to join themselves to the sufferings of Christ, as He poured Himself out in the Passion - the expression of Divine Love.

Saints have been known to refuse all comfortable chairs and beds, throw themselves into thorn bushes, deliberately expose themselves to extremes of heat and cold, even whip themselves with a scourge, in order to accomplish this goal. In fact, this last practice, that is, self-flagellation, was so common among those pursuing sanctity that it was known simply as The Discipline.

Now, in a great sign of the possible sanctity of John Paul II, we have the testimony of his closest companions that he, too, mortified his own flesh through use of The Discipline:

Polish nun Tobiana Sobodka, of the Sacred Heart of Jesus order, who worked for Pope John Paul in his private Vatican apartments and at his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo near Rome. 

Sister Sobodka said: 'Several times he (Pope John Paul) would put himself through bodily penance. 

'We would hear it - we were in the next room at Castel Gandolfo. You could hear the sound of the blows when he flagellated himself. He did it when he was still capable of moving on his own.' 

The flagellation is also confirmed by another bishop who has given testimony, Emery Kabongo, who for several years was a secretary for Pope John Paul. 

He said: 'He would punish himself and in particular just before he ordained bishops and priests. Before passing on the sacraments he wanted to prepare himself. 

'I never actually saw it myself but several people told me about it.'

Why is this important? Because Chris West has, on numerous occasions, publicly said that anyone who mortifies the flesh in this fashion does not really understand the Theology of the Body. He has mocked the saints who have undertaken physical mortifications, especially self-inflicted physical mortification, as not fully understanding the theology of the body. According to West, such individuals showed their spiritual immaturity, their failure to plumb the full richness of Christian teaching, when they did these things. As Chris himself said, "The Church is at about the level of a teenager in her understanding of human sexuality."

I have personal experience of the errors he has publicly taught in this area. Several years ago, I was present for a three-day weekend given by Christopher West on the theology of the body in a Midwestern diocese. Although it was sponsored by a private individual, the event was advertised throughout the diocese, resulting in numerous diocesan officials being present.

West spent the entirety of Friday evening mis-teaching on the place of suffering in the theology of the body, to such an extent that several diocesan officials took turns walking out of the room because they couldn't stand to listen to his errors. Although not a member of the diocesan staff, I had several friends on staff who were aghast at West's teachings. Because they were staff, they could not come forward easily to confront West on these errors.

So, I waited until all the other participants in the evening had conversed with him and departed. Then I personally entered into a conversation with him in order to privately correct him on his erroneous teaching concerning the place of human suffering in the pursuit of sanctity. Mr. West took enormous issue with my statements and responded in a decidedly unfriendly fashion, shouting at me and physically pushing me.

Others who were in the area but out of earshot, including the man who sponsored his talk, saw Mr. West's actions and personally apologized to me for his response, swearing that they would never bring the man into the area again.

Now it turns out that Christopher West, the self-anointed expert on the Theology of the Body, knows that theology so well that he was inadvertently but implicitly mocking Pope John Paul II's own understanding of TOB.

If we needed any further proof that Christopher West is a positive danger to the Church in his misrepresentation of Pope John Paul II's teaching, this personal testimony as to John Paul II's practice versus Christopher West's "interpretation" should put the final nail in the coffin.

Cardinal Rigali, Bishop Rhoades, I call upon you to discipline Christopher West.

Bachman-Palin

Or maybe Palin-Bachman.

Who cares which it is?

But what a race it would be in 2012!

The GOP has the opportunity to put together the first female-female ticket for President and Vice President.

Both women are absolute dynamite, both would be wonderful in office.

Can you imagine the conniption fits the left would throw as it tried to slime two women?
What would N.O.W. do?

It would be glorious fun...

The King of Pizzazz

Most people know Tom Monaghan as the billionaire entrepreneur who invented Domino's Pizza, started the first Catholic law school and university in decades, then trashed both of them in order to move both of them to a Catholic town he was building in Florida.

Many Catholics also know that Tom famously fired Fr. Fessio, founder of Ignatius Press, not once, but twice, reportedly over disagreements about liturgy. Old Tom also had enormous trouble getting the local bishop to agree to consecrate the altar at his on-campus glass cathedral, in no small part because he never bothered to seek the local bishop's permission to build the altar in the first place, thus reportedly making it impossible for Ave Maria Town to ever build its own parish around the campus church.

Much more could be said about Tom's escapades, but the President and Publisher of Our Sunday Visitor probably put it best when he said,

“Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first introduce to Tom Monaghan.”

So, why are we dwelling on Tom Monaghan?
Well, watch how the New York Times connected some dots on Valentine's Day in 1999:

For Mr. Monaghan, the late 1980's were a time when his interest in managing Domino's day to day was waning, while his Catholic activism was rising. He underwrote construction of a mission in the Honduran mountain town of San Pedro Sula and paid $3.5 million of the $4.5 million cost of building a cathedral in Managua, Nicaragua, that was favored by the conservative Miguel Cardinal Obando y Bravo and opposed by liberal Catholics.

In 1988, he was made a Knight of Malta, thus joining an international charitable group with a conservative cast. He also hired several members of the Word of God, a charismatic Catholic group active in right-wing causes, though Mr. Monaghan says he was never a member himself.

Something in there rings a bell, doesn't it? Hmmm... charismatic Catholic group.... hmmm.... Word of God.... wait... where have we heard of THAT group before?

Oh, of course!

The Word of God community was inspired by the charismatic rock drummer and youth leader, Larry Tomczak, who eventually left the Catholic Faith for greener pastures after making millions promoting Protestant theology among Catholic parishes.

The Word of God community was founded by Ralph Martin, who recently joined Drs. Janet Smith and Mary Healy (also WoG) at the faculty of Sacred Heart seminary. Like Ave Maria University, which preferred to fire Fr. Fessio rather than install a communion rail, Sacred Heart Major Seminary adamantly opposes any implementation of Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum, even refusing to train seminarians in the extraordinary form of the rite.

The Word of God movement was precisely and exactly the cult movement that spiritually RAPED Christopher West, according to Christopher West's own testimony in the Washington Post series on the cult's activities. (Fortunately, his cult-enamored parents did allow Chris to play the sacred rock band drums, so important to Catholic liturgy).

The Word of God community was overseen and sanctioned by Bishop Lori. What? Oh, yes. That's right. The man who failed to notice the cult aspects of WoG is now a member of the board of advisors for Chris West's Theology of the Body Institute, so, nothing to worry about there.

Tom Monaghan actively supported THAT Word of God Community.

Throughout the 1980's and early 1990's Tom Monaghan poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into Central and South American Catholic dioceses. He poured further millions into anything related to the Word of God movement. Many of his closest advisors were Word of God acolytes and hangers-on. All the South American bishops who received this money were undoubtedly very appreciative.

At the height of Tom's largess, in the spring of 1997, the Washington Post ran an article series exposing the Word of God movement as a cult. Imagine the sadness in Tom's heart. Worse, imagine the sadness in the hearts of Tom's WoG advisors.

But all is not lost! In the fall of 1997, Chris West - star WaPo stool pigeon in the very public Word of God meltdown - starts quietly working on his theology degree at the John Paul II Center Pontifical Institute.

And, by purest coincidence, within a couple of months of graduation, Chris West, the WoG poster boy for spiritual rape, suddenly finds himself invited to a major conference in Brazil... yes, Brazil, of all places... to deliver a talk on the Theology of the Body.

In an earlier essay, I asked how a no-name yokel with a lousy MA, not even ABD or a Ph.D, got invited to address an international theological conference in Brazil.

Obviously, I still have no idea how this possibly could have happened.
But the questions haunt me.

How does someone who, to this very day, cannot tell the difference between New Age spirituality and Catholic mysticism, how does someone who can't understand Aquinas and can't distinguish between a virtue and a vice, how does someone who can't pass the Sesame Street test on Hugh Hefner, Thomas Aquinas and John Paul II ("one of these things is not like the other"), how, I ask does someone like this get promoted as a good Catholic theologian by any Catholic, much less a bishop (or, God forbid, a cardinal)? Or, for the sake of wild speculation, even promoted by a Catholic billionaire?

Well, it's hard to say (although Al Gore could definitely sympathize).

It certainly can't be the case that the university which doesn't like communion rails, and the seminary that doesn't like the Extraordinary Form, would find anything in common with the theologically illiterate musing of a rock drummer as he meditates on the (New Age?) connection between wild sex and the Catholic liturgy.

No, it certainly is a puzzle.
All we know for certain is, things change.

Why, just yesterday Chris West's episcopal supporter, Bishop Rhoades, was excoriating Fr. Jenkins for inviting pro-abortion Barack Obama to receive an honorary law degree at Notre Dame:

"It is disheartening and distressing when an institution that is regarded as Catholic, such as Notre Dame, fails to follow the guidelines set forth by the Bishops of the Catholic Church, especially in these vital moral matters," read the statement. "It is Bishop Rhoades' hope and prayer that all the institutions that bear the name 'Catholic' will affirm the Church's teachings, expose the culture of death and build up the Culture of Life."

Today, that same bishop says, "I love Notre Dame... I want to have a close personal and pastoral relationship. It's such a strong place."

Yesterday, Tom Monaghan, WoG supporter and South American philanthropist, was pro-life. Today, Tom names a field house at Ave Maria University after a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia slimeball.

Yesterday, Bishop Lori was shocked, shocked to find a cult going on in a community under his watch. Today, he's on the board of advisors for the organization whose ex-cultist founder so deftly mis-quotes Catholic theology.

So, there you have it.
All the dots on how West got his start.
A bishop here, a billionaire there, obviously none of it connected in any way whatsoever, so there must be a supernatural force driving it all.

And I'm sure there is a supernatural force behind it.
There is precedent.

After all, consider the visionaries of Medjugorje, all millionaires now.

Just as Chris West has helped "countless" people, there have been "countless" conversions from Medjugorje. And there really have been conversions from both West's teaching and from Medjugorje. For that matter, innumerable people have come to know Jesus and have eventually entered the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostlic Church through their exposure to the heretical theology of Anabaptism, Lutheranism, Islam, Hinduism, even Buddhism, so why shouldn't Chris West and the visionaries of Medjugorje be able to point to their own happy Catholic converts? It would be absolutely shocking if they couldn't. Chris West, Tom Monaghan, Tessa Bielicki, the various visionaries... what's not to like?

Now, sure, there are the piffling little rumor-mongering stories of disobedience, abuse, etc., but it's pretty clear that God wants us all to be rich.

That's why Tom Monaghan is so pivotal to the success of the Church.

Tom has given us a gospel of monetary prosperity, Chris gives us a gospel of sexual prosperity, and the Medjugorje visionaries live out both to the full (none have taken religious vows).

God wants us to be happy.
What is happiness if it is not being wealthy while having holy sex?

Ultimately, isn't that the heart of the Gospel message?
Isn't it?

Catholic Chutzpah

Is it just me, or are Catholics on the East Coast just really good at playing the victim?

Patrick Kennedy made some absolutely heinous public statements about the Catholic Faith.

His bishop publicly invites him to "come to Jesus" and have a private meeting.

Kennedy responds by saying more stupid things aloud to the press, including:
(a) Kennedy is a political victim of the bishop,
(b) why are we shooting one of our own?
(c) shouldn't this debate be undertaken privately?

The bishop responds to Kennedy's public whining in the press with his own public statement.

Kennedy goes into a pout about how this private dispute has suddenly become public and hides behind the media's skirts, refusing to discuss anything at all.

The Catholic press make fun of him.


Compare Pat Kennedy's situation to that of Chris West.

Christopher West made some absolutely heinous public statements about the Catholic Faith.

His instructors at John Paul II institute call him out on it, as do a veritable Who's Who of Catholic intelligentsia.

West goes into hiding while his supporters complain:
(a) West is a victim,
(b) why are we shooting one of our own?
(c) shouldn't this debate be undertaken privately, in journals that no one actually reads?

Numerous commentators ignore these questions and point out West is still a theological basket case.

West goes into a pout about how this private dispute has suddenly become public and hides behinds a cardinal's skirts, refusing to discuss any of the issues that have been raised at all.

Instead, his public reply is a compilation of MORE theologically stupid things.

Some of the Catholic press make fun of him.
Others start humming loudly and hope the whole thing goes away.

Chutzpah: Original Recipe
The definition of chutzpah is killing both of your parents and then throwing yourself on the mercy of the court because you're an orphan.

If the court doesn't know how you became an orphan, you'll be fine.

Catholic Chutzpah: Extra Crispy
In the Catholic version, it's publicly and repeatedly insisting on stupid, heretical things, then throwing yourself on the mercy of public opinion because people call you a heretic.

If the public doesn't know enough about the Faith to identify the errors, you'll be fine.


It worked for Teddy.
Will it work for Pat and Chris?

The Burning Question (tm): Are Chris West and Pat Kennedy cousins?
Has anyone checked the geneology here?
I'm just askin'...

Why The Left Loves Islam

On the surface, it seems a great mystery. Why would the leftist liberals who embrace abortion, homosexual rights, pornography, free love, sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll find Islam so endearing?

The Fort Hood massacre has made it abundantly clear. Liberals display a motherly, protective attitude towards a religion which:

• flogs sodomites,
• executes raped women for having had sex outside of marriage,
• forbids females from showing their face, much less their fundamentals,
• virtually enslaves women inside their own homes by forbidding them to walk in public without the accompaniment of a male relative,
• displays the height of patriarchy in its polygamous culture,
• essentially forbids musical instruments of any kind, much less Western rock-n-roll,
• denounces not only hard drugs, but even the use of alcohol as a violation of morality.
• permits, indeed, tacitly encourages, the removal of every young girl's clitoris by the age of seven without benefit of anesthesia.
  

Why would leftists who hold candle-lit vigils outside American penitentiaries constantly coddle men who publicly, and with great fanfare, chop hands, feet and heads from their own criminals?

Why allow the name of Allah and the practice of Ramadan into public schools while forbidding the name of Jesus and the practice of Christmas?

David Kupelian, of WorldNetDaily, argues that the left does this because they are spineless cowards, afraid of coming under the threat of deadly fatwah. But this cannot be the case.

After all, look at the leftist embrace of abortionists, men and women who wear body armor to their place of work. Even though you are much more likely to end up dead from being pro-life than you are from being pro-abort, the left constantly touts the dangers of being in favor of abortion. Liberals love to point to the possibilities of martyrdom inherent in promoting the "right to choose."

They can be brave when it comes to supporting their own principles. So why don't they bravely stand up to the Muslims who so clearly, so stridently, oppose so many of the things liberals claim to stand for?

The answer is simple.

Liberals and Muslims differ in their external expressions of how to live out their common fundamental value, but they do share a common, fundamental value.

Army Major Nidal Hakim Hasan was not the first to name the value, but he is certainly one of the more memorable: "We Love Death More Than You Love Life."

The liberals and the Muslims are both, at bottom, nihilists.
Like calls to Like across the deep.
They know each other, they have known each other since before either was born.

It has been said of the promoters of atheistic evolution, "They think nothing made everything." Stuck with the cosmological fact of the Big Bang, the universe-creating primordial explosion that recalls Scripture's "Let There Be Light", the atheist recoils.

The universe can't be from God.
God couldn't create out of Nothing because, while there certainly is Nothing, there certainly is not God.

"No, no, no... no... you see... listen to me.... listen.... if you fold, spindle, punch and mutilate that original Nothing enough, it will explode (enraged by its own victim status, probably) and produce everything. That's what happened. Not God. Just an explosion. That's all. Billions of years ago. Billions."

The "billions" is important. While even atheists agree a Studebaker could not assemble itself out of window dust over the course of a thousand years, when the numbers start to climb, things change. Perhaps it could in the course of a billion years... a billion years... maybe...

The numbers are the thing. Whether talking about billions of years or trillions of dollars, once the big numbers come into play, the liberal atheist gets that far-away glint in his eyes. He falls into a trance as the numbers increase beyond his comprehension. Atheists are worshipers in the cult of the number, followers of a strange new sort of kabalah in which incomprehensibly huge numbers arrange themselves to form a comprehensible, finite and controllable universe. They are slaves to the numbers just as certainly as Muslims are slaves to Allah.

And, from an atheist's point of view, Allah has a marvelous attribute: Allah can change his mind. Allah turns good into evil and evil into good by simply commanding it. And for the liberal atheist, this is very comforting. Sure, Allah doesn't like homosexuality or rape today, but He might change His mind tomorrow. My self-destructive behaviour today may turn out to be a wonderful moral good tomorrow.

If God exists, I want him to be Allah. I will follow only the God of Mohammed, for Mohammed has shown the way. Indeed, Mohammed discovered this marvelous quality: I don't need to change, Allah will change the universe for me, to suit me. And if Allah does not? It does not matter. There is no Allah. Allah changes, morality changes. The universe is what we make of it. This is the liberal atheist's hope.

With Judeo-Christianity, no such possibility exists. God will never change His mind because God does not change. But with Islam all bets are off. Allah may decide tomorrow that rape is perfectly fine, that homosexuality is the preferred form of sexual expression. All we liberal atheists need to do is convince the imams that this is so. And how tough can that be? We will speak honeyed words, show them that we share their understanding of the universe.

They love death more than Christians love life.
They are our co-travellers, for we love death and nothingness more than Christians love life.
We are the same, you and I, Muslim and liberal.
True, you flog and kill me today, and I sneer at your silly theistic beliefs today, but ultimately, we are fellow travelers, on a long desert trek to the same destination. Like the sadist and the masochist, we make a perfect couple.

Major Hasan has to be protected and excused because Major Hasan is a liberal at heart.

He did to the soldiers at Fort Hood what every good atheist liberal has always wanted to do to those Christian, God-fearing, courageous American soldiers - he shot them through the head. He shot them through the heart. He drove a stake into them, chased them down while they were wounded and pumped more bullets into them. He shot them and shot them and shot them until their blood flowed like water, until their blood clotted on the floor, and then he shot them again. He destroyed them, he vented his rage upon them, he annihilated them for daring to question the annihilation that is coming to us all. He ground them to dust, the dust of the universe.

Major Hasan is a comfort to the liberals, he is the teddy bear they haven't had since they were six.
They want him to win, because when he wins, everyone loses.
We lose hope, we lose our belief in the True, the Good and the Beautiful, we lose our contact with God, with Life Himself. And isn't that annihilation of the bond worth a little bloodshed?

No, the Left does not fear Islam.
It adores Islam.
Islam does what the Left wants to do but cannot yet accomplish - it destroys.
Islam is the hero, the superman.
One day, the Left in the United States will do what Islam does today.

One day.
Soon.
Insha'Allah.


For more information on Islam, the Fort Hood Massacre, current events and Faith in the news, read Culture War Notes, the Catholic news site.

Update: Following the attempt to blow up an Amsterdam to Detroit flight on Christmas Eve, National Review On-Line notes that the most serious and violent radical Muslims have backgrounds indistinguishable from our ultra-leftist colleagues.

Killing Us Softly With His Song

Deroy Murdock of the National Review is perplexed. He can't understand why Obamacrats would create a new tax on medical devices, a tax that will inevitably lead to lower medical device availability and higher death rates.

If such a tax goes through, the cost of things like implantable defibrillators and insulin pumps will skyrocket. It will become impossible for thousands of people to use these life-saving technologies. It will, in short, be a death sentence for thousands of older people, thousands of disabled people.

Why would anyone do that?
Indeed.
Why would anyone do that?

Simple.
Barack Obama wants you dead.

Before you close the door and turn away from such a brutally cruel statement, think a moment.

Social security cannot survive the incoming wave of baby boomers. It is on the verge of bankruptcy There is no money for the boomers' old age. Either massive infusions of cash must be made or boomers must die early. We don't have massive piles of cash to infuse, so...

Both parties have known this for years, neither party wanted to touch it because baby boomers would vote them out of office. So, they fiddled, hemmed, hawed, and now the rubber is beginning to meet the road. Instead of privatizing a government program (i.e., removing some portion of a politician's powerbase), raising the minimum age or doing anything that might be seen as eliminating benefits, the politicians have chosen the only other logical alternative. They will eliminate you.

From a purely economic stand-point, it makes perfect sense.

Politicans exist to hold and grow their power. Reducing the power of the federal government weakens politicians. Christians may say "in my weakness, He displays His strength" but politicians do not say this. They never have. They cannot privatize, reduce or eliminate any government program for doing such a thing destroys a politician's reason to exist. In a fight for one's own life, in pure self-defense, it is legitimate to kill your opponent.

From the politician's point of view, we are the opponents.

But that isn't the only way this new approach is reasonable.

From an environmentalist's standpoint, it also makes perfect sense. The environmentalists have long held that the planet is past it's "carrying capacity," that is, they argue that there are too many people. We should have no more than one billion people (some say as low as one million people) living on this planet so that we don't burden it. Obviously, in order to reach this goal, most of us have to die. There's simply no way around it.

Barack Obama has surrounded himself with the most advanced pragmatists of our age, men and women who hold ideology as the highest pure good, something which the grubby existence of actual human beings must bow to and serve. Obama himself opined that his own beloved grandmother was not really worth the end-of-life care that she received. If his opinion of his own grandma rises to these heady heights, what will his opinion of you be?

For these people, God is not a supreme, omniscient Being Who loves us. No, they are the omniscient prognosticators, and they serve a Platonic ideal, an ideal that describes what the world would look like if not for all the stinking masses and their detestable refusal to do what is best for them. We, recalcitrant fools that we are, we are the heretics who spurn their gods. So, for this, too, we must die.

Savvy political commentators know this. But they cannot bring themselves to say these things aloud, although the more thoughtful ones are clearly thinking it.

Peggy Noonan's recent column decried the "callous... stupidity" of the current rulers. This was an unusually frank outburst from a writer normally renowned for incredible quiet reserve. From whence did it come? That, too, is simple.

She sees the hand-writing on the wall. She is horrified by it, but even now, her natural reserve prevents her from connecting the dots in public. To write about something is to give it reality. She is afraid that if she names it aloud, it will become real. So she names instead a hope, the hope that this is merely callous disregard, mere stupidity, a foible of human nature and not a dedicated ideological plan. She sounds cruel and callous in naming it because she hopes it is only cruel, stupid callousness that she names.

But it is already real. It has already been written. Whether in books or in opinion columns, spoken aloud before the people and in quiet conversation behind closed doors by hundreds of Obamacratic minions and followers, sycophants and fellow travellers, the truth has already been named and claimed.

You have to die.
All of us, we all have to die.
Not on our own time, but on his time, on his watch.

We have to die if only to show the Brights that their own predictions were right, if only to give them the sense that they are in the right. Our bumblings, our abortions, our sufferings, even our deaths are now all a necessary part of their self-image.

They are knowledgeable men and women, infallible prognosticators.
They will know their own brilliance, luxuriate in it even more deeply, when they read the soulful requiem over our graves, the graves they dug for us, the graves they buried us alive in.

Obama and his minions need to be brilliant, for if they aren't brilliant, they are nothing, and they don't want to be nothing.

They can't abide being nothing.

So we must die, to prove their brilliance.
And on the day we die, they will sing.
They will sing of this day, for it shows their enlightenment.