Spot the Fake

Two tales from current events, about spotting something fake:

A wedding procession is stopped near Bagdad, Iraq, by those meddling American troops:

Upon inspecting the convoy, soldiers found a stubbly-faced man, Haider al-Bahadli, decked out in a white bride's dress and veil.

Bahadli was wanted on terror-related charges, as was his groom, Abbas al-Dobbi, the official said.

It may be a good thing that the soldiers intervened. Whatever would betray such an oddly conceived masquerade?

The soldiers became suspicious of the convoy because its members -- save the "bride" -- were all male and because one of the cars in the convoy did not heed orders to stop, the official said.

Also, soldiers said, the people in the car seemed nervous and the groom refused to lift his bride's veil when soldiers asked him to, according to the official.

Ahh, so the behavior of the party and composition of the group belied its appearance. That's something to remember.

A homily is delivered by a Roman Catholic priest, at a Roman Catholic Mass, at a Roman Catholic church:

"Two people came into Church to pray. One was an Evangelical pastor whose regional services are broadcast nationally who prayed " I give you thanks oh God that I am not like others - greedy, dishonest or like others who give into same gender sex drives which the bible calls an abomination."

The others who came into Church to pray for a same sex couple raising children born by way of donor insemination who prayed: "Oh god, be merciful to us for not finding our own medium to share with the broader audience the biblical passage of 1 John 4:16 – God is love and when we abide in love we abide in God and God in us."

Jesus concluded the last ones went home more worthy in God's sight than the first."

Hmm, the person delivering this alternative view of the Gospel looks like a Roman Catholic priest, but he's showing a decidedly firm deviation from the doctrines of the Catholic Church. I sense that he's closer to an Episcopalian than a Catholic. What other cards is the priest playing?

Two people came into Church to pray, one was a Catholic Archbishop who refuses communion to Rainbow Sash people at the Cathedral on Pentecost Sunday who prayed " I give you thanks oh God that I am not like others – greedy, dishonest or like others who need to make their dissent from official Church teaching so public and divisive."

The other were Rainbow parents of GLBT people at the Cathedral on Pentecost who stood off on the side and prayed, "Oh God be merciful to us for failing to attend our own Churches more often; they say they love God then turn there backs on us in hate directly contrary to 1:John,4 – whoever loves God must also love the neighbor."

Jesus concluded the last ones went home more worthy in God's sight than the first.

There's another straw man argument against the doctrines of the Church whose uniform he's sporting. He's not supportive of Catholic doctrine on sexuality, and he's promoted the LGBTQI agenda before, and only backed down when promised some heat.

So, we have a terrorist dressed as a bride, and an Episcopalian dressed as a Roman Catholic priest. Which do you think will end up doing more damage?

h/t Curt Jester

With Such Ardor

From the NCR:
The archbishop's out of town, as are his co-adjutor and auxiliary bishop, and some suspect shenanigans are scheduled to take place at a local parish. In steps Dennis McGrath, communications director for the archdiocese, to fill the shoes of his absent Archbishop by declaring Catholic teaching..umm, sort of:

[McGrath] contacted Fr. Leo Tibesar, pastor of St. Frances Cabrini, to tell the priest that “news of this would likely not be acceptable to the bishops.”

Ok, not a particularly rousing expostulation for the Magisterium, but we'll take what we can get. The event was cancelled, the Catholic Father/Lesbian Daughter duo were banished to a U.C.C. church for their lecture, and all is well.

In speaking to a National catholic Reporter writer, McGrath further softens his intervention, lest he come off like a modern Bernard Gui:

McGrath said he told Tibesar, “I do not speak for the archbishops and do not want to represent their authority, but this talk does not seem to be in keeping with archdiocesan rules and policies or Vatican rules and policies.”

Alright St. Jimbob, just shut up and be glad he said something to begin with..

Meadering Path of the Spiritually Lost

The Labyrinth lady cometh. Rev.Dr. Lauren Artress (Episcopalian) is winding her way to Nebraska, bringing her spiritual practice with her:

"There are many ways to describe a labyrinth. It is a path of prayer, a walking meditation, a crucible of change, a watering hole for the spirit and a mirror of the soul. May you be nourished."

Let me describe the labyrinth. It is a toilet of wasted time, a sink of prayer, a medicine cabinet of spiritual placebos, and a mirror of self-seeking. It has been weighed on the bathroom scale and has been found wanting.

With her "may you be nourished" line, it sounds like the labyrinth is more a substitute for the Eucharist than anything else. Is it really so difficult to seek Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and in our neighbors, that one has to wander on large-scale doodles?

Let us compare and contrast the winding way of the labyrinth versus the Gospel:

Proverbs 15:21 Folly is joy to the fool: and the wise man maketh straight his steps.

Isaiah 35:8 And a path and a way shall be there, and it shall be called the holy way: the unclean shall not pass over it, and this shall be unto you a straight way, so that fools shall not err therein.

Hebrews 12:12-14 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees, And make straight steps with your feet: that no one, halting, may go out of the way; but rather be healed. Follow peace with all men, and holiness: without which no man shall see God.

Deuteronomy 27:18 Cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander out of his way.

I know that there are many catholics who wander lost on these paths as well. Why is it that some would rather walk in circles rather than kneel in front of the Tabernacle?

Orthodoxy Enforced, to a Degree

Fox News reports on a story of a Catholic university that's enforcing orthodoxy, of a sort:

The private Chicago Catholic university recently informed professor Norman Finkelstein that his three courses were canceled after a dispute over tenure that drew charges of anti-Semitism against him.

Critics find issue with Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, who believes that some Jews have exploited the Holocaust. Finkelstein is the author of five books, including "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering."

I wish that DePaul University was so zealous in defending the Catholic Faith as it is defending Jewish victimhood. Not too long ago, De Paul started turning heads with it's avant garde Gay Studies program.

"I understand that there's a tension there," says Assistant Prof. Gary Cestaro, the program's director. "Institutions of higher learning, even if they are Catholic, aren't spokespeople for the Vatican," he says. "Like any university, there should be room for free inquiry."

I guess that some inquiry should be more free than others? Or is it that the only kind of free inquiry desired is that inquiry free of Catholic doctrine. What ever happened to Ex Corde Ecclesiae?

Looking over the course offerings and course descriptions for the LGBTQ Studies, I don't see anything that points to a discussion on Catholic doctrine on human sexuality. Maybe the topic will be touched upon at the upcoming "Out There Conference" at DePaul in October. There's a session in the program called “Roman Catholicism and its Teaching on Homosexuality: Past, Present, Future” with James Halstead and Tom Judge from DePaul University, and Patricia Jung, Loyola University Chicago. The rest of the sessions seem to be the usual rah-rah for gay causes.

Halstead's not the most solid bulwark against the prevailing culture, as evidenced by his comment on CNN in regard to pro-abortion politicians and the Eucharist:

"It's precisely the people that are sick or in error that need to be going to communion. It's not a reward. It's a help on the journey."

There are few better ways to tell someone that they are sick or in error by declaring that they are not in communion with the Church, but you won't hear that from Halstead. Patricia Jung, inline skating gold medalist at the 1994 Gay Games, is not a notorious stalwart for true Catholic doctrine either. In her paper, "The Call to Wed: Why Catholics Should Celebrate Same Sex Marriage," Ms. Jung displays her ignorance/disregard for catholic teaching:

"When the church’s long-standing emphasis on the significance of procreativity to marriage is
critically analyzed, it becomes clear that both the church and society should encourage all those so called – whether queer or straight – to wed."

"Critical analysis", in Academe-speak, is code for rationalized dismissal. With Halstead's and Jung's records, it looks like the deck is stacked against any straight, pardon the pun, discussion of Church teaching on human sexuality at this conference.

Heresies and Definitions

Inspired by a conversation at Pro Ecclesia, I started thinking up some modern responses to ancient heresies. 'Tis a shame that heresy is fashionable nowadays. What answers would you get, if you asked folks about:

Arianism - "Those are the 'White Power' dudes, right?"

Pelagianism - "Isn't that a disease?"

Montanism - "Rock climbing addiction."

Donatism - "Giving stuff to charity."

Antinomianism - "Umm, they want to be anonymous?"

Modalism - "Insisting on ice cream with pie."

Adoptionism - "Adopting too many children."

Marcionism - "Believing in aliens."

Nestorianism - "Homes should only be made out of twigs?"

Anyone else?

New additions, and more modern heresies:

Monophysytism - "Say that again, I didn't catch that. What? I still don't get it."

Calvinism - "A quote from the comic strip 'Calvin and Hobbes'." [as opposed to Far Sidism]

Everything's Coming Up Judas

In addition to the recent flare of popularity of the gnostic fraud, 'Gospel of Judas', there's a new novel by Jeffery Archer The Gospel According to Judas By Benjamin Iscariot. From a review by Dr. Justin Thacker:

At its simplest, it is an account of the public life of Jesus Christ in the style of the canonical gospels, and based on the testimony of Judas Iscariot as given to his son, Benjamin Iscariot. Hence, it is not given to wild fantasy or sensationalism like the The Da Vinci Code, nor is it a contemporary version of the second-century gnostic 'Gospel of Judas'; it is in a genre all of its own. It is the Diatessaron - a second-century harmonised gospel account - blended with some contemporary New Testament scholarship (albeit liberal), written by a disgraced politician and popular novelist; it is remarkable.

So now we have a 21st Century polluted gospel account. Yes, it's remarkable. The arrogance needed to undertake such an endeavor is staggering. And just to lend the novel some credibility, they dress it up:

The book is presented in a mock leather cover with gilded edges and a ribbon marker.

Wow, it looks so much like scripture, only a expert could tell the difference.

It is approximately the same length as one of the canonical gospels, and divided into twenty-five chapters, which are further divided into verses. Throughout, in red ink, parts of the canonical gospels are either quoted in full or faithfully paraphrased, and references to these verses are given in the margin. Hence, both visually and in terms of content, these authors are trying to present this work as a gospel of Jesus Christ.

Why all the effort? Isn't the Word of God sufficient as it is? Obviously not to these folks. And, I love the phrase "faithfully paraphrased". Speaks volumes, eh? Here are some of the more egregious deviations, as noted by the reviewer:

• In chapter 2, verse 8, doubt is cast on the authenticity of the virgin birth.
  
• Jesus presented in this gospel appears to have little interest in the 'Kingdom of God', nor in his own Messiahship.
  
• The book does not declare that Jesus was not the Christ, but it certainly casts doubt on this hypothesis, suggesting, with Judas, that he was merely a prophet, a man of God.
  
• What is missing, though, is the conclusion Peter reaches in Mark 8:29 "You are the Christ".
  
• The Judas presented in this account is not the one who betrays Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, but rather one who was only trying to protect Jesus from himself. Judas, it is suggested, is the only one who really understood what Jesus was about.
  

Okay, we know who's kool-ade they've been drinking.

The most disappointing factor to this is the Catholic scholar that was associated with the project, Francis Moloney, who naievely asserts that his motivation was to get people to know "what God has done for us in and through Jesus Christ". Why not have people read the Bible? Scholars know better than to trust the Bible, as evidenced by the Jesus Seminar and its adherants.

h/t TitusOneNine

Episcopalian Discernment

All the news organs are a-twitter over Jim McGreevey, former NJ Governor and Catholic, entering the Episcopal church and joining their seminary. Here's the very first paragraph in USA Today's version, which tells you why it's newsworthy, and exactly why the Episcopal church wants McGreevey:

The nation's first openly gay governor has become an Episcopalian and been accepted into a seminary, according to a published report.

The Episcopal church, in recent years, has laboured hard and fast to build its reputation as a "Gay Church". These endeavors have made others in the Anglican Communion uncomfortable, and have infinitely widened the gulf between them and Rome. Back to McGreevey, for a moment:

McGreevey was an altar boy and attended Catholic schools. While in office, he continued to practice the religion, but differed from church teachings in several areas, including his support of abortion rights.

I would also add, to his list of disagreements with Rome, his penchant for buggery. By joining the Episcopal church, he's found a religion that has all the outward ceremonial appearances of the Catholic faith, but without the inconvenient theology. In the Episcopal seminary, he'll learn about:

• The United Nations' 'Millenium Development Goals'
  
  
• How to get people to give money to fund futile attempts to achieve The United Nations 'Millenium Development Goals'
  
  
• How to parse the Bible to justify sinful behavior
  
  
• How to ignore the Bible when you can't parse it to justify sinful behavior
  
  
• How to distract attention to the fact that you're ignoring the Bible to justify sinful behavior, by focusing your attention on The United Nations 'Millenium Development Goals'
  

Pray for this confused man, as he thrashes wildly in the jaws of a wolf.

Enamoured with the Dung

Phillipians 3:8
"Furthermore I count all things to be but loss for the excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but as dung, that I may gain Christ: "

or, if I may paraphrase, in faux scottish brogue, "If it's not about Christ, it's crap!"

And the copious piles of it are blotting out the rest of the horizon. Political bickering, duplicitous posturing, griping about war and illusions of peace. It's all dung. So why are we so entranced by it?

Heretics, pushing theology-wrapped dung, have been all the news this week, along with some signs of episcopal vertebrae in dealing with the heresies. Part of what makes the heresies so dangerous to the faithful and faithless alike, is the episcopal action, or inaction, and the viewers' perceptions of it. In the Maguire case, there are many orthodox believers that think that the USCCB's denunciation was both late and tepid, and many liberal believers that may take offense at the same denunciation. No one is satisfied, and both sides' view of the Church is dimmed that much further.

It's a literally no-win situation. All a heretic has to do is push, and they win, knowing that any counteraction, or inaction, will further diminish the reputation of the Church.

Pray for our bishops, that they will stand up for the true Gospel, regardless of the cost. Pray for the heretics, that they can learn humility and obedience. And pray for the audience, that we can love the Church beyond the players on the stage before us.

Familiarity Breeds Contempt

This Sunday's Gospel reading, from Luke 4:21-30 :

"And he began to say to them: This day is fulfilled this scripture in your ears. And all gave testimony to him: and they wondered at the words of grace that proceeded from his mouth, and they said: Is not this the son of Joseph? And he said to them: Doubtless you will say to me this similitude: Physician, heal thyself: as great things as we have heard done in Capharnaum, do also here in thy own country. And he said: Amen I say to you, that no prophet is accepted in his own country. In truth I say to you, there were many widows in the days of Elias in Israel, when heaven was shut up three years and six months, when there was a great famine throughout all the earth.

" And to none of them was Elias sent, but to Sarepta of Sidon, to a widow woman. And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet: and none of them was cleansed but Naaman the Syrian. And all they in the synagogue, hearing these things, were filled with anger. And they rose up and thrust him out of the city; and they brought him to the brow of the hill, whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them, went his way."

As I was mulling that scripture, the Jesus Seminar suddenly came to mind. Scholars, so intent to have a historical Jesus, have disposed of the divine Jesus. He was now familiar to them, and thus not seen as Lord. "The Seminar meets twice a year to debate technical papers that have been prepared and circulated in advance. At the close of debate on each agenda item, Fellows of the Seminar vote, using colored beads to indicate the degree of authenticity of Jesus' words or deeds. Dropping colored beads into a box has become a trademark of the Seminar. " Here, a report of some of their findings:

During the second phase of the Jesus Seminar, which lasted from 1991 to 1996, the Fellows examined 387 reports of 176 events, in most of which Jesus is the principal actor, although occasionally John the Baptist, Simon Peter, or Judas is featured. Of the 176 events, only ten were given a red rating (red indicates that the Fellows had a relatively high level of confidence that the event actually took place). An additional nineteen were colored pink (pink suggests that the event probably occurred). The combined number of red and pink events (29) amounts to 16% of the total (176). That is slightly lower than the 18% of the sayings—primarily parables and aphorisms—assigned to the red and pink categories in The Five Gospels.

And they rose up and thrust him out of the city; and they brought him to the brow of the hill, whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.

That Explains It

Amy Welborn asked about the political climate in the Episcopal Church, and boy did she get a response from one commenter:

Big, well-monied parishes all over the U.S. are splitting off from The Episcopal Church (or TEC, formerly known as ECUSA, formerly known as PECUSA) to form splinters run by Africans.

These parishes are, in fact, being manipulated by Count Dooku, who is in reality a Dark Lord of the Sith and attempting to foment all-out galactic war.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Chancellor, Archbishop Rowan Williams, bumbles at Lambeth Palace in London, to the derision of his critics. Few know, however, that he is a Sith Lord himself, skillfully using compromise and concessions between the two groups to rule the galaxy and resurrect Darth Cranmer.

Ahh, so that explains it. I laughed so hard that I cried. A later commenter also posited that ABp. Roger Mahony was a Sith apprentice, to which I shall not add to the allegory.

Speaking of Episcopalians, Unseen Blogger also noticed that the recipient of my tender ministrations last week wrote a blog entry complaining about the episode:

I've been getting some very nasty notes from some of the neo-puritan, so-called orthodox, conservative evangelical crowd who seem to have cornered the market on nastiness.

...

They say that when I don't allow them to post their noxious messages in this space, I'm not being 'inclusive'. That's because the world they live in so certain and smug and secure, so black and white without any nuances or shades of gray, they wouln't recognize "discernment" if it stared them in the face.

They have "Jeeeesssssuuuuussss," remember? I don't. My faith is "apostate," "in authentic" and the bible I read is "counterfeit."

Man, she's a veritable fount of pantywaist theological sentimenality, where does one begin? I won't. The commenters to the above pity party were all comforting and sympathetic, or just pathetic, in a very "ohh, poor misunderstood, persecuted you." tone. If I continue to give her lessons on Scripture, she just may start to cry, at this rate. Consider the dust shaken off. It's time for Math Class.

Ahh, Tolerance

Yours truly trespassed in the yard of one of the "Inclusiveness" apostles, and got dope-smacked for it. Okay, I was asking for it, me and my quoting scripture and proclaiming the Word where it's not particularly welcomed.

It all started over at Titus One Nine, an Episcopalian blog, where my attention was grabbed by an article about sin and identity. I followed the link to a blog, run by an Episcopalian Lesbian cleric, where I thought I could contribute something to dialog. Wrong. Here's the meat of the contention:

But, theologically, [Behaviour-Identity separation] has always been a deeply flawed argument, predicated on several facets of a mind/body dualism which has always tried to make identity and behavior separate and distinct from each other.
Living a "compartmentalized life" - with my identity here and my behavior over there - is to live with one foot in and one foot out of the closet.
...
And, [target of criticism], my brother, you cannot say, on the one hand, that LGBT people are sinners because they act on their sexual orientation outside of marriage, and, at the same time, deny marriage to LGBT people because we are sinners because we are physically intimate and express our love outside of a civil right and a liturgical rite which is denied to us.

That's called "blaming the victim." It's also called "crazy-making" - for everyone involved.

As I was reading her comments, St. Paul's letter to the Romans sprang to mind:
Romans 7:18-20

" For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.

For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.

But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. "

I, like most others, am a sinner. I'm duly ashamed of my sins, and I realise that they damage my relationship with God. God created me to love Him and serve Him, not spend my life entertaining myself, and God expects obedience (while anticipating failure). I'm NOT going to demand that the Church validate browsing pornography or autoeroticism, because the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit, informs me that these activities are disordered.

So I decided to leave a comment on her blog:

[other commenter] beat me to it, as Paul to the Romans (7:14-) was called to mind whilst reading the author's commentary.

Our own desires and appetites should be completely secondary to obedience to the Father, His Will having been expressed in Sacred Scripture and validated by His Son, Jesus. Professing to following Christ requires complete obedience, not rationalizations of defiance.

"Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?

For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. "

1 Corinthians 6:19-20

aemulare ergo et paenitentiam age.

Okay, I'll admit, I wasn't expecting that spiritual musing to be warmly welcomed. This is the response I got from the hostess:

First of all [innocent bystander], [another commenter] and St. JimBob - are any of you Episcopalian?

I mean, the kind that has gone through some kind of course of introduction to the Episcopal Church: our history, traditions, Anglican Spirituality and/or Anglican polity?

If you haven't, that may explain your biblical perspective as well as your, um, reasoning.

And, just so you know - a simple "yes" or "no" will do.

If you're not Episcopalian, there's no need to continue this discussion.

And, if you are, well, there's still no need to continue this discussion.

This is a Blog. It's MY blog. I get to decide who prints responses here.

If you want to debate someone on these points, go find another blog.

If you are searching for information, go to a library.

If you want someone to agree with you, go to a conservative, or orthodox blog.

Thanks.

Ummm, alrighty then. Her description of herself, listed on her blog, says that she's "a passionate radical Orthodox, Anglo-Catholic with a joyful Evangelical spirit", so I assumed that a radically orthodox comment from an evangelical Catholic should be acceptible. WRONG.

She's entirely entitled to run her blog how she likes, and her tirade betrays how she likely runs her church: Lip service to tolerance and dialog, and hissy fits when challenged, especially with Sacred Scripture.

FYI, The current Episcopal Church is EXACTLY what Call To Action and other nominally catholic, dissenting groups want for the Catholic Church.

Fillet of Carp

Eh, what the heck, I've got a couple minutes.

Fr. Richard McBrien teaches theology at Notre Dame, a Catholic university, and when he's not in the classroom, he's busy loudly chafing at Catholic Theology. If you can guess how he's maintained such an oddly tenouous position for so long, you're wiser than I. My guess would be possession of photos of certain someones with certain someone elses, with or without certain garments. But, to the substance of tonight's installment..

As noted at the Cafeteria is Closed, Fr. McBrien's recent column was tangentially related to bishop Bruskewitz, as it was a ciphered support of Call To Action. Call To Action is a nominally catholic organization which aims to make the Catholic Church less Catholic, and more like the Episcopal Church. Seeing the Episcopal Church in it's doctrine-rending convulsions is a curious motivation to support application of those doctrines to the Catholic Church, which have caused episcopalians so much grief, but I digress. On to Fr. McBrien, and his discussion on religious inflation:

Inflation not only occurs in the economic order; it can also occur in the Church. When claims for religious truth are "enlarged or amplified unduly or improperly," the actual truth loses some of its credibility. The extreme consequence of such inflation is that all religious truths lose their value.

Only if religious truth is like a currency, which can be traded for self-righteousness, intellectual superiority, or rationalization to obscure sins. But, if truth is really Truth, then it is a whole and complementary system which cannot be parsed into convenient parcels for either acceptance or dismissal. Looking for degrees of truth is, in essence, looking for escape routes from obedience.

Fr. McBrien rehashes bishop Bruskewitz' ecommunication of Call to Action members in the Diocese of Lincoln, and finally arrives at the question in his heart:

These claims beg the question: What constitutes "the Catholic faith"?

Gee, Pontius, is that the best you can do? "Quid est veritas"?!? Your wash basin is over there.

Is every official teaching of the Catholic Church, at whatever level, and every disciplinary decree of a Roman congregation a matter of "Catholic faith," or what the traditional Latin manuals of theology called "de fide"?
Is there no doctrinal difference, for example, between the Church's current discipline of obligatory celibacy for priests of the Latin rite and the teachings of the ecumenical councils on the divinity of Jesus Christ? Is the belief in angels on the same doctrinal level as belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

If you are looking for doctrinal differences, then you are looking for a way to dismiss the authority of the Magisterium of the Church. For authority has been given to the Apostles and to their successors to loosen or bind, on Earth and in Heaven, in all matters, great and small.

The Whinepress of Wrath

Oh no! National Call to Action is going to start bombarding Lincoln, Nebraska Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz with the "Fraternal Correction" suggested by Patricia Ewers. It's like illegal immigrants lecturing a congressman about environmental policy: An attempt to cover one's own illegitimacy by accusing an adversary of an unrelated fault.

They're also going to copy the head of the USCCB, Bishop William "[uncharitable comment edited]" Skylstad on the letters. Might as well CC Santa Claus as well, for all the good that will do, as Bruskewitz gives creedence to the USCCB to the same extent as he might the Tooth Fairy. So, having washed out at the Vatican, are they going to the next higher authority (in their minds) by going to the USCCB?

From CTA's press release:

“Bishop Bruskewitz may try to excommunicate our Nebraska members, but he cannot excommunicate our efforts for justice,” says Rachel Pokora, President of CTA/Nebraska. “We want our daughters to be able to be altar girls and we want to protect the children in our diocese in the wake of the sexual abuse revelations. Every other diocesan bishop in the United States allows altar girls and has complied with the sex abuse-related national Charter for the Protection of Children
and Young People, except Bishop Bruskewitz. The bishop has excommunicated us for simply wanting justice in our diocese.”

Don't be disingenuous, Rachel, those reasons are not why you got excommunicated. The CTA gang was excommunicated 7 years before the abuse scandal even broke out. There's nothing like blatant falsehood to communicate one's innocence. So what does CTA want that got them excommunicated: Birth Control, Abortion, Married Priests, Women Priests, Gay Marriage. Once again they try to clothe the rest of their agenda with the "Protection of Children" issue:

“Does this mean that any Catholic is at risk of excommunication when they disagree with their bishop or Catholic teaching? What about the more than 90% of US Catholics who disagree with the Vatican’s stance on birth control? What about the two-thirds of US Catholics who desire women’s ordination? Does this recent letter from the Vatican mean that any Catholic who advocates for the protection of children in the wake of the sexual abuse crisis could be subject to excommunication?

The devious insinuation of legitimate issues to mask the advance of the illegitimate desires are proof enough that EVERY catholic, in EVERY diocese, should get out of Call To Action, period. Any remaining should be excommunicated.

h/t CWNews/OTR

Foresight and Worthiness

From Athanasius' biography 'the Life of Antony of Egypt'

[Antony] denounced the Arians, saying that their heresy was the last of all and a forerunner of Antichrist. And he taught the people that the Son of God was not a created being, neither had He come into being from non-existence, but that He was the Eternal Word and Wisdom of the Essence of the Father. And therefore it was impious to say, 'there was a time when He was not,' for the Word was always co-existent with the Father. Wherefore have no fellowship with the most impious Arians. For there is no communion between light and darkness [20]. For you are good Christians, but they, when they say that the Son of the Father, the Word of God, is a created being, differ in nought from the heathen, since they worship that which is created, rather than God the creator. But believe ye that the Creation itself is angry with them because they number the Creator, the Lord of all, by whom all things came into being, with those things which were originated.

If one looks at the contemporary plagues of Mohammadeans, Zionists, and blithering christians sects, one will see that Arianism is alive and well. Dan Brown's 'DaVinci Code' is just one more grenade in the bandolier of Arianism, denying the Divinity of Jesus and calling the Apostles liars. Antony predicted this. Antony spent the better part of is life in spiritual combat against evil spirits and the fallen angel they serve, Satan. I'll take his word for it.

I've been reading ' The Eternal wisdom of the Desert Fathers' , published by Paraclete Press, and while I've just read up though Antony, I'm astonished at the love and dedication to our Lord that these men and women lived. It really shames me to compare my life to theirs, my comfort to their mortification. As much as we kvetch about loopy liturgists, Brokeback bishops, and heretical theologians, we cannot compare in our witness to those who've given up EVERYTHING for Christ. I get the same feeling when reading Bl. Teresa of Calcutta, her complete surrender to Christ, unselfish love, and gentle criticism of the rest of us slackers. Time for a wee attitude correction..

"Which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come immediately and sit down to eat'?

"But will he not say to him, 'Prepare something for me to eat, and properly clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you may eat and drink'?

"He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he?

"So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.'"

Women Priests and Dead Parrots...

I was stumbling along the shoulder of the Information Super highway (thanks, Al), and spotted this paper explaining the philosophic genius of Monty Python:

Mr. Praline, the man attempting to return the parrot, is our verificationist, as is evidenced by his attempt to verify the death of the parrot by reference to experience, such as seeing that it's dead, its falling to the ground when sent aloft, its being nailed to its perch, and so on. The shopkeeper is our philosophically more sophisticated holist. He knows that maintaining the truth of other statements, concerning for example the bird's strength and its affection for the fiords, will allow him to maintain that the parrot is alive. Notice who wins: the shopkeeper is never brought to accept that the parrot is dead. Indeed, the sketch could go on indefinitely without that ever happening.

Makes me think of the spate of faux ordinations foisted by self-acclaimed "Women Priests".
A paraphrase and parody:

Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining that issue when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been heralded by the mainstream media.

(pause)

Owner: Well, o'course it was heralded by the mainstream media! If I hadn't heralded that issue in the mainstream media, it would have nuzzled up to the USCCB, bent 'em apart with the Spirit of Vatican II, and
VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

Mr. Praline: "VOOM"?!? Mate, this issue wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised!

Owner: No no! 'E's pining!

Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This issue is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! Read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis! If you hadn't hoisted these women on a barge on the St. Lawrence River, They'd be blessing twinkies in their kitchens! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the
bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-ISSUE!!
...
So. There you have it. Random thought for a Tuesday night.

TakingBackTheirCrutch

Watch out, Boomers, there another group with which you can share your gripes about the Church, and plot to "Take Back Our Church". As if there weren't enough outlets for neo-retro-heretical musings, Robert Blair Kaiser wants you:

In fact, without your help, and the help of a million others like you, we won't be able to demand the action necessary to create the Church we need.

Mr. Kaiser, like the millions of others that he's seeking, was not properly catachised as to the origins of the Church:
Matt 16:
18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

19"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

Notice that Jesus said "I will build My church": The Church we need is already built, and was built by Christ. Why does someone need to build another? Ask Photius, Henry VII, Luther, and Rev. Jonas Q. Biblethumper why a "New Church" needs to be made, and how that Men are worthy to build it.

The need of another SoVIIette (Spirit of Vatican II worshipper) group is also in question. Here's a poster in TakeBackOurChurch's forum:

Honestly, aren't the goals (both stated and implicit) of takebackourchurch.org pretty much the same goals of the "We Are Church" movement, Voice of the Faithful, the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church (ARCC), and those of a myriad of other dissident groups?

Even Commonweal is a bit skeptical:

I'm all for having a serious discussion of Roman centralism, a problem the Church has been struggling with since at least the Gregorian Reform, if not earlier. But pretending that the Council fathers at Vatican II had the same mindset of the Founding Fathers of the American revolution is just nonsense.

Mr Kaiser responds to the Commonweal argument:

Those in favor of "the divinely instituted hierararchical constitution of the Church" can, of course, like Talmudic scholarsm, quote paragraphs 18 and 19 of LG [Lumen Gentium](and other grafs) to support a position that simply isn't working in the context of our times.

FYI, I think it is poor scholarship to quote verses from Vatican II in order to make any kind of case for anything. We have to look at the legislative history of the Council, some of which is written down, and some of which I was personally privvy to because I was there, conducting Sunday night salons and watching the drama of the Council unfold for four sessions. I can attest that phrases like "the divinely instituted hierararchical constitution of the Church" were inserted AFTER the decisions for a people's Church were already made by huge conciliar majorities.

Hearsay also makes for poor scholarship, Mr. Kaiser, but you probably already know that. But, these assertions also highlight my contention with anti-Vatican II bloggers, that the cancer of dissent was already in the Church before the documents hit the street, as evidenced by the popular reaction to Humanae Vitae.
I'll take Jesus' Church over a 'people's Church' any day, and twice on Christmas. You want a 'people's Church'? Check out the Episcopalians, and their weather vane doctrines.

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.

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.

Boston Massacre

Well, while I was dormant for Lent, there was a lot of stuff going on:


Minus priests, parishioners lead services at 3 occupied churches

What's up with people who cannot let go of their church buildings? It reminds me of, in Jesus' time, how attached Jews were to the Temple itself, but they didn't understand the one who dwelt there. Don't these Bostonians realise that Jesus is in every other parish tabernacle as well? I know that you may have to go farther for mass, or that your favourite priest is not in your new parish, but the Mass is about Christ, not where you go to find Him. These people show that Mass is purely about themselves:

It was an Easter Sunday service at St. Frances Xavier Cabrini church in Scituate, and it was led almost entirely by women.
Standing in front of the altar, Bonnie Mayo and Patti Litz, longtime members of the seaside church, handed out wafers and wine.
{snip}
Members orchestrated a service that replicated some aspects of a traditional Mass while removing others that are performed by a priest. A priest sympathetic to parishioners' fight at St. Frances Xavier Cabrini had blessed the wafer and wine beforehand, rather than during the Easter service. Nawn-Fahey introduced her telling of the resurrection as a ''reading" instead of a Gospel. And MacIsaac delivered a ''reflection" instead of a homily. Her remarks focused on Mary Magdalene and other women who came to Jesus's aid.
''Perhaps this is the future of the church," said MacIsaac, 51, marveling at the way church members had guided the congregation through prayers and song.

Now they get to play 'priestess', enabled by a sympathetic priest giving them the Eucharist to play with. The Irony gets thicker:

''Cardinal Sean, shame on you," scolded Linda Walsh, 56. ''Do the Christian thing. Let the people have a priest. Let my people go."

Linda, my dear, the good bishop has given you priests. But, your participation in this sacrelidge shows that you would rather have a priestess in your own church than go to the priests, and churches, the bishop has provided.

It's amazing the Protestant attitudes that so many catholics have, and how quickly they come to the surface when they find out that the Church doesn't bend to their will. Here's your 'More Horizontal Church', a position commonly known as 'supine'.

Awww.. feeling unloved?

From 365gay.com (via cwnews)

“When considering Pope Benedict’s discussion of the different dimensions of the concept of love, it is striking that in so many ways the Catholic Church fails to love lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, said Debbie Weill, executive director of Dignity.

"His letter describes in considerable detail several facets of God’s love, which the Church intentionally chooses not to extend to LGBT persons, in direct contrast to the idea that ‘Deus Caritas Est:’ God is Love”." [emphasis mine]

I'ts hard to explain the difference of loving the sinner and hating the sin, if the sinner cannot separate the sin from their own identity as a child of God. We were not made to be servants of our carnal appetites, to the point where we cannot hear about the love of God without receiving it as a rebuke.

Kyrie Eleison.