From A Priest of the Oven God

News Item from CWNews: The Moral Failure of the German Pope

An Op-Ed piece from an angry zionophile, critiquing Benedict XVI's visit to Oświęcim:

The visit was extraneous, annoying and infuriating. The German pope failed to do the most basic thing he should have done at Auschwitz: He failed to kneel next to the ovens, look to the blue skies of the Auschwitz afternoon and ask forgiveness for the murder of six million Jews, in the name of German or the German Catholic church.

I think the writer is actually looking for the Pope, and all others, to kneel in front of the Ovens of Auschwitz, and worship Jewish Victimhood. The dismissal of past mea culpas indicates that the writer does not believe in forgiveness, for the merciful do not ask for an eternal litany of guilt. To ask for such an unending request for pardon betrays the writer's need to have the Catholic Church permanently abased at the feet of his merciless sentiments.

The German pope's apology at Auschwitz, over the graves of a million murdered Jews, should have had a different purpose: To warn against renewed anti-Semitism, and to atone for the sins of the German Catholic church, which in the best-case scenario was silent in the face of the Nazis, and in the more probable one – collaborated with them.

I imagine that there's a dogeared copy of "Hitler's Pope" sitting next to his toilet. There are a multitude of Jews, both living and deceased that would decry the collaboration statement.

The pope made sure to maintain an unnecessary, fictional balance comparing victims of other peoples and nations.

When the communists wanted to minimize the slaughter of Jews at Auschwitz, they spread lies that four million people were killed there. The pope may not have repeated this lie, but took care to emphasize again and again the multi-ethnic makeup of the victims.

Linguistically, this is true. Factually, it is a lie: the fate of Jews at Auschwitz was not the same as other peoples.

Here again, the failure to worship Jewish Victimhood as being predominantly, if not solely, the only suffering there was during the Holocaust.

Yes, times have indeed changed. It's true, pope Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, did not visit Auschwitz as part of the March of the Living. He is not the chief rabbi of Israel. He is the head of the Catholic Church, and Jesus is his God.

But especially in light of his lofty position, he is also a spiritual guide for a billion Catholics worldwide. And what did his visit to Auschwitz tell them? He forgot anti-Semitism, forgot anti-Jewish hatred, forgot the sins of his church and his people and made due with a general denunciation of hatred.

Yes, dear writer, but what you have failed to divine, is that our God, through His Son, Jesus, can forgive sins, so that they are forgotten. The Ovens of Auschwitz have no such inclination.

Terms of Endearment

I'd like to get your thoughts on this discussion:

St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse said...
You gotta remember, -----, that God loves these people and we should as well. The basic sentiment of your rant, fatigue with organizations advocating sin, is a good and noble complaint. But your language to belittle and demean those sinners transforms your message into a "clanging cymbal" (1 Cor 13:1).

Instead, try this:

It is ironic that Amnesty International, renowned for advocating for the freedom of prisoners, is now advocating slavery to sin. All those who profess Christ would do well to remember that He is our freedom, not organizations that encourage the prisons of worldly and unnatural desires. We should, at all times and in every place, proclaim Jesus' victory over sin, and exhort all to follow Him.

As soon as one throws an invective like 'Fudgepacker' into the discussion, ears close, and the effect is as Peter's defense of our Lord during His arrest (Matt 26). If, in our zeal, we remove a sinner's willingness to hear us, then we have lost an opportunity to preach the Gospel.

If we show our love for them as brothers, and respect them as children of God, then we will speak to them accordingly. and they may not like what we have to say about sin and behaviour, but we need to communicate it all with love.


[other blogger] said...
Jimbob,
Nahhh.... I'm not trying to demean anyone. If I choose to use phrases as "fudgepackers" and "rump rangers"... why not? I'm subjected to "Queer Nation", "the Queer Studies program", the chant "we're here... we're queer, get use to it!". Hell, the sodomites don't seem to have much of a problem in making their private lives public, not to mention using so-called derogitory terms for themselves, well... who am I to deny them their God given right to ref to them in terms that some may find "degrading".

By the by, I can't think of many things as degrading as the homosexual sex act. Oh, wait... there is one. Propogating it.

As far as "respecting" them, I do. I absolutely respect the fact that they have exersized their God given free will. They've chosen evil. I may not like it, but I can respect it.

In closing, the kid glove, "communicate it all with love" tactic sure has worked well, hasn't it? Lord knows it's worked SO WELL that we now have open homosexuals wearing Roman collars and advocating the sodomite lifestyle.

What the fudgepackers and rump rangers are in desperate need of, is a strong dose of the truth. If it takes a verbal punch in the nose to get their attention... so be it.


St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse said...
I bet you'd agree with me that, collectively, we've heard virtually NOTHING from the ambo about the Catechism's content on homosexuality, divorce, and contraception in the last 30 years. Nothing at all that would make parishoners squirm a bit, nothing that would pack the lines to the confessional. Am I right? And look where we are now.

The silence is not dealing with the problem, it's avoiding it. The unfaithful shepherds in turn led the sheep away from the fullness of the gospel. The Church didn't treat the sinners with kindness because they didn't address their sins at all. We've left people in bondage to their sins, and now that they've grown accustomed to their chains, we forsake them?

My kids, God bless them, are a raucus lot. If I ignore their misbehaviour until I get pissed off enough and spank them, what have I taught them? Little, if not just how far to go until I blow up. If, instead, I take the time to speak with them, rationally, and give them instruction on a continual basis, chances are that they'll learn how I want them to behave.

I'm all for denouncing sin, and people need a reminder of what's in store for those who persist in mortal sin. By all means, slag the sin, just remind the people that Jesus can forgive them (and so should we). I seriously doubt that Jesus, when faced with the adulterous woman, called her a 'whore'. He saved the vinegar for the self-righteous.


[other blogger] said...
JB,

Yep, plenty of nuttin' the past 40 years. I'll agree with ya there.

And I just can't help but look back on the Spiritual Works of Mercy, specifically

1. Admonish the sinner

2. Instruct the ignorant

If one is slipping onto the wrong path, absolutely a gentle nudge is more than likely needed to correct the coarse. However... well, you probably know where I'm going with this.

And I do agree that Jesus more than likely didn't ref to the adulterous woman as "whore", but he did say something concerning casting pearls before swine (what a slam that was in the Jewish world!), and shaking the dust from your sandals (another verbal punch in the nose, keeping in mind what an insult it is in that culture to ref to someone as 'being lower than my feet', etc.)

Jesus may not have used verbage such as "whore", but He sure did use words to get someone attention... and in some cases, He would probably be ref'ed to as being 'insensitive' and 'inflammitory' and dare I say it... a caveman. *insert evil grin here!*

---

So, the question is, dear readers, how should we address sinners to best call them to freedom from their sins? Does Rev. Phelps, of Westboro Baptist Church fame, do better at encouraging sinners to repent than the Courage apostolate?

DVC's Protestant underpinnings

A great post over at the Fifth Column, "Pagan Flesh, Protestant Bones" aptly describes the protestant, rather than gnostic, roots of Brown's theological porn.

Maciel in the Colosseum

Ahh, the din of the Roman crowds after a spectacular gladiatorial display. Mighty Caesar extends a fist toward the arena, thumb twitching horizontally, as if harkening to the mob's disparite cries of "martyr" and "catamite". Some in the crowd protest the warrior's innocence, appealing the heavens for divine vindication. Others scream for chastisement, as if the penalty of this one would indict all who have evaded justice in the past..

All the caterwauling over the Vatican's handling of Fr. Degollado inspires me thus.

The man is a sinner. News Flash: so are the rest of us. And I, for one, am glad that Diogenes hasn't outed me as an occasional porn-grazer. I do have a habit of being penitent as well, and I hope that Fr. Degollado is successful in his new endeavor of spiritual preparation for the Last Judgement. Will we resent the forgiveness of his sins?

Someone, clue the man in.

I love getting e-mail from Sojourners. The voice of the liberal rationalizing the Gospel. They're latest e-mail was trolling for donations, and hawking a book by Brian McLaren, "The Secret Message of Jesus". The title screams volumes about gnostic aspirations and how christians have gotten it wrong throughout the ages. What is it about human pride that insists on using the Gospel to help inflate it? Here's a sampling of the obtuse premise

"What if Jesus' secret message reveals a secret plan? What if he didn't come to start a new religion - but rather came to start a political, social, religious, artistic, economic, intellectual, and spiritual revolution that would give birth to a new world?"

Earth to Brian, this is Earth calling Brian. Where've you been the last 2000 years? Sure, there've been many christians that have been less able to keep to the plan, and many are selective in their practice of the Faith (nudge nudge), but you have to look at the bigger picture altogether. The religion and dogma, that are so repellant to the liberal mind, are there to keep us on the path to the right gate, the one Jesus described as "narrow". If you read the bible, you'll see something mentioned about a Holy Spirit, which is to provide guidance to those who are baptized and follow Christ. The author, as so many protestants before him, cannot reconcile the Church and the Holy Spirit, so they just assume the sophia de jour is correct, and the Church is wrong.

The message of Jesus was never a secret, it was just hidden from the learned and clever, just as it remains today. The message is simple, and it demands faith and obedience, neither of which most modern theologians are disposed to do. They, instead, believe in Carbon-14 dating, linguistics, and archeo-sociology. Anything BUT the message. It's too hard to deal with, they cannot understand it. The message of Jesus is no secret, they're just willfully ignorant.

Back to the book, it's call for "the Kingdom of God, here and now" is not really new. Go to any Catholic Church, and He is there, the King, enthroned in the tabernacle (or, if you're lucky, a monstrance). Jesus is already our King, right now, but in the course of recognizing His authority, we must acknowlege our duty to serve. And our duty is not limited to social justice and peace, as the Sojourners crowd would have you believe, but of conforming our lives to the Cross. I still love getting those e-mails, though.

Feeding the Hungry

So, you're walking down a city street, and are waiting to cross the street. On the other corner, you see a bedraggled, bearded man in dirty clothes seated near the stoop of a closed shop. What do YOU do?

Cross the opposite way to avoid the situation all together? Do you walk right by him, averting both eyes and conscience, or maybe pledging to yourself to give some money to the local soup kitchen? Do you give him some money, hoping that it doesn't end up becoming alcohol?

What do YOU do?

I'll tell you what I do once I see some conversation on this topic. Tell your friends, and have them chime in.


My Solution:

About 5 years ago, I was walking down the street, pushing my baby son in a stroller, and was approached by a homeless man. I saw him from a ways, before I got there, hitting up some other man for some money, so I knew what was coming. As our paths intersected, he said "Excuse me, mister.." , and I just looked straight ahead and kept walking.

Even as I was walking away, I just couldn't believe what I was doing. The internal debate raged.
"He's just going to use it to buy alcohol."
"Or, maybe, Jesus is hungry, and you just walked by him, you dick!"
"What am I supposed to do? I give money to the Matt Talbot Kitchen, and the People's City Mission. Isn't that enough?"
" Dude, you're rationalizing. The man was asking you for help, and you couldn't even LOOK at him."

I started buying gift cards. McDonalds, BK, coffee shops, and some retail places are all good, as long as there's no alcohol. I had to make sure that wherever I found someone and gave them a card, they wouldn't have to walk miles to redeem it. Our Church's school sells gift cards for all kinds of places, as a fundraiser, so getting some cards are easy as 10 minutes after Mass.

I keep a couple in my wallet, a couple in the car, and a few extras in my jacket, so that when I'm faced with that dilemma again, I can do something more that shrug and walk away.

Scourging

A small-framed woman,
humbles the mighty with her love
of Jesus, of the poor.
He words scourge my conscience,
tearing into my complacency,
revealing flesh calloused by self-interest.
Her rebuke burns me
everywhere I look,
as if I'd been staring at
a lightbulb filament.


This is a brief reflection after reading "Mother Teresa, In My Own Words" while in Las Vegas.

News must be slow..

.if CNN is restating the obvious:

For late-night hosts, it's open season on Bush

NEW YORK (AP) -- Perhaps sensing vulnerability, the late-night comics have been piling on President Bush.

Where's this reporter been the last 6 years? Has he or she, perhaps, been busy re-reading Curious George in search of the elusive 'H. A. Rey Code'?

Canadian Sniper Identified, Still At large

Rev. Ronald Trojcak is a Roman Catholic priest in London, Ontario, but was compelled to publicly condemn the actions of a fellow Catholic, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska. April 25th, In a comment on the online version of the Lincoln Journal Star's coverage of Bruskewitz, Trojcak left this remark:

"I suggest that this bishop's stance, not only on this matter, but on several, provides plausible justification for abandoning the Roman church, in which I have been an active priest in the 43 years since my ordination."

A request for a clarification from Rev. Trojcak has so far been unanswered. So, the next best thing would be to take other public musings from Rev. Trojcak to find the source of his discontent. Maybe he's a Rad Trad, and is unhappy with Bruskewitz' latae sententiae excommunication of SSPXers.

On his personal website, Rev Trojcak has links to several National Catholic Reporter stories, The Tablet's online edition, and (drum roll, please)
"Voice of the Faithful (VOTF). Indicate Your Support by Sharing your Email".

Under his "Great Books" banner, Rev. Trojcak has these gems:

Sacred Silence: Denial and Crisis in the Church by Donald B. Cozzens
The Changing Face of the Priesthood: A Reflections on the Priest's Crisis of Soul by Donald B. Cozzens
She Who Is:The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse. by Elizabeth A. Johnson

Okay, I guess that since the 1964 Missal is not on his list, he's not an SSPX booster. From the pages of the Purple Pew (just guess), Rev. Trojcak can be found commenting on this article:

“By virtue of being intrinsically disordered, homosexuality is not a human act, but is a depravity and an abomination as Sacred Scripture, the Church and the Catechism all state so clearly,” Rev. Jeffrey T. Robideau of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lansing, Mich.

Trojcak's respose to the article:

"I am a Roman Catholic priest, engaged in university teaching for 35 years, and in university chaplaincy for 28 years. I am appalled by the inept, uninformed, and anything but Christian remarks of this priest. I have been teaching the Jewish-Christian scriptures, and unhappily, it seems that the priest has not read recent scholarship on the Bible and homosexuality. Unhappily, he seems also to have missed the all-inclusive ministry of Jesus.
Comment by Rev. Ronald Trojcak, Ph.D. — November 2, 2005 @ 9:34 pm"

I'm sensing a pattern here, and am perceiving Rev. Trojcak's objections to Bruskewitz's strident orthodoxy. But what gives a priest permission to snipe at a bishop in another country?

In a review on Amazon.com for Cozzen's Sacred Silence: Denial and the Crisis in the Church, Trojcak goes on so:

I am a Roman Catholic priest, ordained 40 years, and I am more grateful than I can say, for Donald Cozzen's latest book. It is the most plain-spoken, insightful, exhaustive, profound, and above all, honest book on the Church and its current parlous state, than any of the many I've read. I hesitate to call it courageous, though it surely is that. For this book followed his earlier book on the priesthood, and he was pilloried by many for that. But, fatuously, I'm afraid, I would like to think that anyone, cleric or lay, would have been, if not able, at least willing to say what Cozzens has said here. Unhappily, this is far from the truth. Now, if a bishop would be willing.......

So, Rev. Ron find Cozzens inspirational and Bruskewitz abhorrent. Let's see what Trojcak thinks about the late pope, JP II. In a Google cached page of PressEtc, a post was written called "Pope to saint: Seven sins of John Paul II" and listed these accusations (mostly pertaining to upholding Catholic Doctrine):
Sin 1: HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa
Sin 2: Genocide in Rwanda
Sin 3: Beatification of Mother Teresa
Sin 4: Over population and poverty
(And continued onto a non-cached page)
To which this reply is appended:

rev. ronald trojcak, ph.d. (a roman cat
Written by Guest on 2005-06-05 21:06:55
I appreciate this statement about the late pope.

Ahh, things are coming into a sharper focus...let's see what else we can find. In a review of John Cornwell's book A Pontiff in Winter, Trojcak concurs with his subject:

I say all this in order to provide the basis for Cornwell's central assessment of John Paul's papacy: namely its intolerance for pluralism. Here, pluralism extends to almost every element of the church: the authority of local bishops; the integrity of episcopal synods; the liturgy and liturgical texts, and perhaps most consequentially, theological diversity. Recall John Paul's treatment of a number of prominent theologians: Charles Curran, Leonardo Boff, Jacques Dupuis, and Hans Kung, among many others.

But strictures on diversity ignore the massive historical developments in the church's life and thought which have constituted the church. Such developments have been the hallmark of the history of the church from its very beginning. Moreover, much intolerance enforces a stultifying uniformity in a world whose cultural diversity we know now more clearly than ever before.

I believe that the greatest merit of Cornwell's book is its implicit demystification of the papacy.

By this time, it's clear to see why Rev. Trojcak felt compelled to assail Bruskewitz as he did: Bruskewitz is against those practices that really get people to leave the Catholic Church. And make no mistake, Rev. Trojcak, just because they may warm a pew on Sunday doesn't mean they're Catholic, and physically taking the Eucharist isn't a guarantee of Communion with the Church.

Bishop Bruskewitz, and his orthodox example, has given "plausible justification" for men and women to take Holy Orders, not "abandoning the Roman Church", as Trojcak suggests.