Noonan Doesn't Get It

In her most recent column, Peggy Noonan argues that the MSM tried very hard NOT to report on the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. They were dragged kicking and screaming to the table, and they still get cold chills every time they run a story.

Peggy Noonan is simply wrong.

According to the Dept. of Education's own studies, the public schools produce victims at a rate 400 times higher in the course of ten years than the Catholic Church produced in 50 years.

If the news reporting were equitable across all lines, we would see 400 stories on public school sexual abuse for every one story we see on priest sexual abuse.

Similarly, the rates of sexual abuse among Protestant and Jewish denominations are also higher than that in the Catholic Church.

If the reporting were equal across all incidences, we would see two or three stories about other faith denominations' abuse for each Catholic priest story.

Finally, we must remember that child-marriage is not only NOT a sin in Islam, heterosexual pedophilia is considered a virtue, since the 50 year old man who consummates marriage with a nine-year old girl is simply emulating Mohammed (To be fair, this was not unusual in ancient times. Moses himself demands of the commanders of the army: “Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man” (Numbers 31).

Mohammed lived a sinless life, according to Muslim belief, so anyone who imitates him is living a virtuous life. Mohammed married Aisha when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine. He was 54. There is essentially NO reporting on this fact anywhere.

No one is calling for Islam to cleanse itself of the rot.

Peggy, how about a column about that?

But why not?

Aren't you and other news types willing to risk having your throat cut for criticizing Mohammed?

So, let's sum up a little more accurately than Peggy was able to do.

The MSM reporters went after the Catholic Church almost exclusively and certainly out of all proportion to the actual amount of abuse that occurred within the Church.

It ignored (in order of abusive importance) Jews, Protestants, secular public schools and Islam.

Noonan's attempt at MSM apologetics is simply pathetic.

Yes, the abuse happened, but no, the reporters didn't try to avoid attacking the Church.

They reveled in it, the focused on it, they intend to take the Church down.

The crescendo is designed to reach its peak during Holy Week.

End of story.

Peggy Noonan is either an idiot or a liar.

I've lost all respect for her.

Bad Popes

Bonnie Erbe of US News and World Report is in high dudgeon. The Pope was remiss in handling a sexually abuse priest!

Hang the Pope!

Yada, yada, yada.

Now, as a Catholic, I want to personally thank Bonnie and company for their close attention to the Catholic Church's trials and tribulations. After all, Bonnie is very concerned for Catholic welfare. She cares about Catholics in a way that she obviously doesn't care when it comes to any other group of people.

For instance, when Carol Shakeshaft reported on the level of sexual abuse in the American public school system (400x higher in the schools than in the Church) Bonnie was silent as a lamb. For every child abused by a priest, 400 were abused by the public schools. It's actually worse than that, because the Church abuse was spread over five decades, while the school abuse is just the estimate for the last decade.

Similarly, when Yemen found it impossible to outlaw child marriage, Bonnie saw no news. There is nothing wrong with Muslims who insist that child marriage is not only legal, but laudable, because they are Muslims, after all, and we can't expect them to be decent people.

And we won't even discuss how the ritual of Jewish circumcision passes on HIV to infants, nor will we mention the higher rates of sexual abuse in Jewish or Protestant communities.

The examples could be multipled, but why bother?

None of this is news.

Furthermore, we should also recognize that it is only purest coincidence that by piling onto the Pope, the MSM are simultaneously attacking Barack Obama's most formidable political opponent apart from the Republican Party and Barack himself.

So, why does Bonnie get upset with the Pope? Because Bonnie is interested in our welfare. She cares. It brings tears to my eyes to know that she cares.

But she needn't worry. Even if Pope Benedict is eventually found to have exercised the worst possible judgment in regard to priestly sexual abusers, it's not like he's the first or the worst of the Popes to have done that. Let's reminisce a bit, shall we?

Pope Stephen VI (896-897) had a grudge against his predecessor, Pope Formosus. In order to humiliate his memory, he had Formosus’ body dug up, placed on a throne, and tried for acting improperly as a bishop. The corpse was found guilty, its three blessing fingers were cut off, it was dressed as a layman, briefly re-buried, then exhumed again and the body thrown in the Tiber. All ordinations he had performed were declared null. In gratitude for this and other actions, Pope Stephen was shortly thereafter imprisoned and strangled to death.

Pope John XII (937-964) was accused by a synod of 50 Italian and German bishops (bishops, mind you, not scurvy little reporter-babes) of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery and incest. The conflict between the Pope’s supporters and his opponents resulted in bloodshed in the streets of Rome, some of it directly inflicted by John XII himself. Cardinal-Deacon John had his right hand cut off, Bishop Orgar of Speyer was scourged, a high palatine official lost his nose and ears. Pope John died shortly after. According to rumor, he was stricken by paralysis in the act of adultery.

Pope Benedict IX (1032-1048) was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter. Placed on the throne at about the age of 20, he was driven from office by a faction in Rome and replaced by the anti-pope, Sylvester III. Benedict managed to return the favor, driving Sylvester from office and regaining the throne, but resigning the office and selling it a short time later for a large sum of money to Gregory VI. When he repented of that bargain and tried to regain the throne from Gregory VI, the Council of Sutri convinced Gregory that he had committed the sin of simony. Gregory resigned, and Clement II was elected. Clement died shortly thereafter and Benedict seized the throne a third time. He was driven from the throne again, and Damasus II was elected in his stead. He eventually repented of all his actions, resigned the throne permanently and lived a life of penance in the Abbey of Grottaferrata until his death.

In his third book of Dialogues, Pope Victor II referred to Benedict's "rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it." St. Peter Damian recorded that Benedict "feasted on immorality" and that he was "a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest." He accused Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and repeated the rumor that he was said to have sponsored orgies.

Pope Urban VI (1378-1389) treated the people around him so badly that several cardinals defected, fled Rome, and attempted to elect a different pope. This began the Great Western Schism, when two different lines of men both claimed to be pope, and each was backed by a saint and doctor of the Church. Urban himself was subject to at least two attempts to assassinate or depose him, both plots hatched by cardinals of the Church.

And these are just some of the finest examples of papal depravity that could be brought forward. There are more. If you insist on being scandalized by bad popes, or leaving the Church because of a bad pope, why on earth would you choose to balk at the present contender when so many better examples of great papal sinners are available?

So, we have had bad popes. Although the evidence is still by no means clear, let us grant, for the sake of argument, that this particular pope, Benedict XVI, could be numbered with them.

So what?

As Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461) declared, in his third homily for Christmas Day, "the dignity of Peter suffers no diminution even in an unworthy successor" (cujus dignitas etiam in indigno haerede non deficit).

Even by 450 AD, less than 70 years after the Church had become the official religion of the Roman Empire, the Church had already seen anti-popes and attacks on the popes that overshadow anything the 20th or 21st century has produced. The fact that people are outraged when some evil can be attributed to a priest, bishop or even Pope is merely a demonstration that everyone holds the Church in the highest regard.

What is barely newsworthy in reference to public school teachers, what is roundly ignored when it comes to other faiths, this same conduct is considered outrageous in Catholic Faith precisely because our Faith is true and none of the others are.

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is the sole source of moral Truth. When our leaders fail, it is a much greater failing.

"The latter are forgiven nothing", says De Maistre in his great work, Du Pape, "because everything is expected from them, wherefore the vices lightly passed over in a Louis XIV become most offensive and scandalous in an Alexander VI" (II, c. xiv).

Thanks for affirming what we already knew, Bonnie.

Would He?

According to ABC News, death threats have been made against Barack Obama on Twitter.

I am, of course, absolutely horrified... horrified, I tell you.. horrified, that anyone would have that attitude towards Our Beloved Leader.

But the contemplation of such an awful... awful, I tell you... awful sentiment sparked a musing.
No, a musing, not amusement. My muse sparkled into action. Sparkled, I say.

Now, ABC News gravely reminds us that it is a violation of federal law to threaten the life of the President.

Of course, in order to successfully prosecute the gentlemen involved, the President would have to establish that he is actually legally President.

He would have to produce a birth certificate.
No, not a certificate of live birth, an actual birth certificate.

If that checked out, he would have to explain how he fulfills the definition of "natural born citizen" given that his father was not an American citizen. Not a US citizen born in the United States, but a "natural born citizen."

There is, after all, a legal difference between being born a citizen of the United States and being a natural-born citizen of the United States.

The first requires EITHER American parents OR birth on American soil.
The second requires BOTH American parents AND birth on American soil.

So, all relevant evidence would have to be brought forward.
College transcripts and scholarships might even have to be examined.
All the documents that were never revealed would have to come out from under wraps.
All kinds of questions would have to be answered.

Yes, that's what would happen if these nefarious gentlemen... nefarious, I tell you!... nefarious gentlemen were prosecuted.

Somehow, I don't think these gentlemen will be prosecuted.

UPDATE 4/21/2010

My prophetic abilities remain intact.

1) In fact, after investigation by the Secret Service (who are required to investigate all threats against the President), neither one of the nefarious gentlemen have been prosecuted by the federal government, nor are they expected to be.

Toldja.

2) Despite Mark Shea's suggestions, the Secret Service has not even begun to hint that they will investigate me for having broken federal law.

Why would they investigate me?
Well, because Mark says I am complicit in violating federal law: conspiracy to assassinate a President!

Yes, MURDER MOST FOUL!!! (hisses....)

And I'm "coy" to boot.
I knew I was a goy, but I didn't realize I was coy.
Hmmmm.....

In any case, since Shea NEVER engages in hateful, malicious, totally absurd ad hominem attacks we know he must be right. Yet the Secret Service seems to dither.

Hmmm... again.

Could it be a.... conspiracy?

Are Secret Service agents conspiring with me against the President?
Tune in to Mark Shea's blog to find out more!
But bring your tinfoil hat, a set of earplugs, and a small towel to wipe away the spittle of his rage. He can be a "wet" speaker sometimes, if you know what I mean.

And, if you do drop by, don't forget to send him my thanks for his personal endorsement of me, "bitter writer" that I am, and two of my best-selling books!

Yes, he loved me once, before he hated me.

Or, to put it as only Ralph Waldo Emerson could, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines."

Exactly!

Death Panels in the Bill

Were you happy that the death panels, at least, didn't make it into the Chicago Butcher's law? Well, think again. They're in there - you just have to realize how neatly it was done:

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a county where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

There it is.

How does that equate to a death panel, you ask?

Simple - think about how the Baby Boomer generation is aging out, where they are aging out, and how the demographics of population growth works.

Old people don't have kids. In fact, Americans overall are barely having two children per family on average. The only places which will see 150% population growth will be areas with high illegal immigration levels.

Geographic areas with large numbers of aging Baby Boomers aren't going to have high population growth, except through immigration. And older people tend not to move hundreds or thousands of miles. They like to stay in their circle of friends, in neighborhoods they are familiar with. They tend to lack the financial means to move. When they do move, they tend to move to where other older Americans already reside.

So, population growth in areas with high numbers of Baby Boomers is simply not going to happen. Now, it is true that Florida appears to be an exception to these rules, but keep in mind that Florida gains population growth only by drawing on an entire nation's worth of the wealthiest of older Americans.

Result? Essentially, no hospital expansions will be possible in any area which has a large number of older people. As the number of aged people in an area increase, the institutions to care for them won't be permitted to increase.

If you don't live in an area with high illegal immigration, you won't have any hospital expansion, even though your aging population requires it. According to the law, as the aged population increases, the relative number of hospital beds will shrink.

But it gets better:

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

See? The cost of producing drugs and medical devices will rise in order to pay these taxes, but the hospitals won't be able to expand their size to help cushion and cover the cost increases. So, smaller hospitals with proportionately higher drug and medical device cost per patient will be forced out of business.

And, according to the law, no one will be able to replace those missing hospital beds. It will be illegal to replace those hospital beds. They're gone.

So, not only will the relative number of hospital beds not increase, the absolute number of hospital beds will decrease.

Precisely as the population in an area ages out, the facilities to care for them will disappear.

Islam stops Christian conversion in part by forbidding the construction of new churches or the maintenance of existing churches.

Barack Hussein Obama has taken a page from sharia law and applied it to the Baby Boomers. Wherever they live in large (and growing) numbers, the availability of hospital beds to care for them will shrink.

As the American population ages out, hospitals will become proportionally too small to care for the available hospital-needy population. This will hit small states, like Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc., the hardest, since their states are so small that geographic variations between county and state are very unlikely to have any cushioning effect.

Butcher Barack knows his business. You have to admit, his solution is possibly the neatest solution to killing old people that could have been developed.

And now it's the law.

Wave goodbye to the nice grandparents!

May 2015 UPDATE
Well, it's 2015 and everything is working according to plan.

August 2017 UPDATE
It's 2017, and at least a few people are starting to catch on

May 2023 UPDATE

It's taking a bit longer than expected, but now the hospitals are shutting down in droves.

Why Nuns Support ObamaCare

59,000 nuns support ObamaCare, in the calm, cool ignorance that they will be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes.

Why would 59,000 nuns support ObamaCare in defiance of the USCCB?

The answer is simple really.

Most of the liberal orders of nuns are dying.

Nobody in these orders is under 60 years of age.

None of these orders have paid into Social Security, unemployment or Medicare/Medicaid.

They are due absolutely no government benefits.

In most cases, the dioceses aren't going to help them much, if at all.

Apart from those nuns who managed to earn a diocesan retirement because they worked in a diocese for awhile, no diocese has any financial obligation towards a member of a religious order.

Religious orders are supposed to take care of their own.

Now, in the past this worked out because the fresh blood coming in at the bottom would find employment somewhere in the Church and provide the necessary funds to keep open the religious orders' retirement homes. This cycle works great when you have a steady stream of young postulants, novices, etc.

Unfortunately, there aren't any new vocations in the liberal orders. Their old revenue stream is now as dry as the wombs of most of the post-menopausal Wicca worshippers; it's as out-of-date as the 1970's pantsuits that are their new traditional habit.

The truly sad thing is, some of the nuns trapped in these orders are still faithful to the Church - their order has just been destroyed by the Powers That Be(tm) who run their lives.

The rain fails to fall on both the just and the unjust.

In any case, every nun in every one of these dying orders is VERY worried about her retirement.

After a year of staring at the ticking clock on the wall, the same wall that Barack, Nancy and Harry have been running their heads into for the last year, the nuns are scared to death.

What if ObamaCare doesn't pass?

It's a positive nightmare.

From their point of view, government-run health care is their only ticket to a trouble-free old age. If they don't throw their weight aboard now, the train might never leave the station. So, they've climbed out and have begun to push.

They don't really give a damn about the women who will be injured by abortion or the children who will die as a result. Those young girls - both the girls in the womb and the women carrying them - were never going to join their Magic Circle novitiate anyhow. To hell with them.

What these Kumbaya creatures don't realize - or don't want to know - is that ObamaCare intends on solving the Medicare gap by euthanizing old people. Sister Sillypants had her fingers in her ears when Obama talked about euthanizing his own grandmother.

Obama is her only hope, and she has to count on likely dying before he gets the euthanasia panels fully operating. Or at least she can look forward to three hots and a cot while she waits for the pillow over her face.

So that's the great irony of the thing.

These nuns REALLY WILL be the first ones up against the wall.

And, deep in their hearts, they know it.

But now that they've given up on Christ, Obama is the only source of hope they have.

If they abandon him, to whom will they go?

Still Crazy, After All These Years

At one time, he must have been sane.

It's hard to imagine it, but the man was the editor in chief for the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You remember that little book! Green cover, lots of numbered paragraphs, kind of harsh on that whole "let's act out homosexually" idea.

How quickly we forget!

Cardinal Schonborn, may God bless him, seems to have forgotten everything he's ever read. He now says celibacy may be the problem behind the media firestorm over pedophilia in the Catholic Church of Germany and Austria.

Oh, if only priests could marry! (sob! sniffle! snort!)

It's a crying shame that they can't!

Now, lest we fall down same memory-hole, we should recall the Vatican's own verdict on this: the pedophilia scandals have been caused by sodomites.

For those keeping score of such things, that's what the John Jay report originally said, too, before the USCCB got a hold of it and "revised" the findings a few years after it came out. And, of course, the US Government's own study of public schools demonstrated that public school employees offend at a rate about 20x higher than priests. As far as we recall, public school teachers are not prohibited from marrying.

So, how many people out there think that a sodomite can be cured of his predilections simply by having him marry a really hot woman?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Anyone?

Apparently, Cardinal Schonborn is of that opinion, because he seems to think that if sodomite priests could just get married, all of these pedophilia scandals would scatter like the storm clouds before a strong wind.

Either that, or the man is quietly recommending that sodomites be allowed to attempt to sacramentally marry each other in the Church.

But certainly even a prince of the Church isn't that stupid.

Right?

Right?

Bueller?....

Where has that boy gone?

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.