The penitential and grace-filled Lenten Season begins with the celebration of Ash Wednesday tomorrow.
It is a season that urgently calls us to conversion and is a time for deepening our spiritual life, most especially through prayer, fasting and almsgiving. Our Holy Father, Pope Francis, in his Lenten messages, has encouraged us to see God’s Word as a gift and other persons as a gift. He has written: “Lent is the favorable season for renewing our encounter with Christ, living in his word, in the sacraments, and in our neighbor. The Lord, who overcame the deceptions of the Tempter during the forty days in the desert, shows us the path we must take. May the Holy Spirit lead us on a true journey of conversion, so that we can rediscover the gift of God’s word, be purified of the sin that blinds us, and serve Christ present in our brothers and sisters in need.”
In keeping with Pope Francis’ exhortation, it may be beneficial to remind ourselves of traditional Lenten practices observed within the Church. These include:
ABSTINENCE – All the faithful who have reached 14 years of age are required to abstain totally from meat on Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent.
FASTING – All the faithful between the ages of 18 and 59 inclusive are bound to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. This practice involves limiting oneself to a single full meal and avoiding food between meals. Light sustenance may also be taken on two other occasions during the day.
Of course, the faithful are reminded that medical conditions, age, infirmities may constitute a just cause for non-observance of these dietary penitential practices. In addition, every diocesan Bishop has the authority to alter or abolish these practices within the particular church entrusted to his pastoral care. It is wise to refer to the particular Lenten regulations binding in your particular diocese.
EASTER DUTY – After they have been initiated into the Most Holy Eucharist, all the faithful are bound by the obligation of receiving Holy Communion at least once a year. This precept must be fulfilled during the Easter season, unless for a good reason it is fulfilled at another time of the year.
The following also should be noted:
The obligation to observe, as a whole or substantially, the penitential days specified by the Church, is a serious one. Days of penance are not merely individual exercises – they are observed by the whole Church, as the Body of Christ.
After having reached the age of discretion, members of the faithful are bound to confess once a year grave sins which have not already been absolved.
The faithful are encouraged to celebrate the sacraments of the Eucharist and penance frequently during the Lenten season. Reading the Scriptures, prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, generosity toward the poor and the needy are additional means of becoming more involved in the Lenten season.
Pastors and parents are responsible to see that young persons, who are not bound to the above requirements, are educated in an authentic sense of penance.
All other Fridays of the year remain as days of penance in prayerful remembrance of the Passion of Jesus Christ. The Bishops of the United States have recommended abstinence from meat as a penance for all Fridays of the year, although each individual may substitute for that tradition some other practice of voluntary self-denial or personal penance. This may involve acts of mortification, prayer or charity.
A blessed Lenten Season for us all!
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Monday, February 27, 2017
CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE NETHERLANDS IN CRISIS
From time to time, I offer overviews of the status of the Catholic Church in various parts of the world.
In this post, I wish to focus our attention upon the Roman Catholic Church in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, a sovereign state and constitutional monarchy with territory in Western Europe and in the Carribean.
The four parts of the Kingdom—the Netherlands, Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten are constituent countries and participate on a basis of equality as partners in the Kingdom. In practice, however, most of the Kingdom's affairs are administered by the Netherlands on behalf of the entire Kingdom.
Although the number of Catholics in the Netherlands has decreased significantly in recent decades, the Catholic Church today represents the largest religious group.
A study conducted in 2012 showed that the Netherlands, once known as a Protestant country, was only 10% Protestant, the decrease resulting from defections.
As of December, 2013, there were a reported 3.9 million Catholics in the Netherlands, a figure representing 23.3% of the population but significantly down from the more than 40% which had been reported in the 1970s.
Between 2003 and 2013, the Catholic Church suffered a membership loss of over 589,000 members. And the number of Catholics continues to decrease by about a .5% annually, almost at par with the decrease in the number of Dutch citizens who identify themselves as Protestants.
On the other hand, Mulim immigrants continue to increase and currently represent approximately 6% of the population.
A study conducted in 2006 reported Sunday Mass attendance had decreased to less 1.2 percent of the Dutch population in 2006. More recent numbers for church attendance have not been published.
In 2015, the head of the Catholic Conference of Bishops in the Netherlands, Cardinal Willem Eijk, Archbishop of Utrecht, told the faithful to prepare for the closure of about a 1000 Catholic parishes, or about 2/3 of those in the country.
In his message, the Cardinal said that parishes were being suppressed because the numbers of parishioners actively practicing their Faith had dwindled to the point where the operation of the parish was no longer possible.
The decline of Dutch Catholicism has been well documented and much commented-upon, but this may be the first time that the head of the Dutch Catholic bishops has admitted to a specific cause: the post World War II shift to the extreme “progressivist” left on social and family issues.
In 2002, the Dutch were the first to legalize euthanasia. That decision was followed quickly by a “protocol” that allowed doctors to euthanize infants. At the present time, patients are being euthanized for depression or other treatable conditions.
The Netherlands has also taken an activist role in the global movement to abolish all legal recognition of the traditional family and to promote the Sexual Revolution throughout the world. One of the first to legalize prostitution, the country is also one of the main funding sources of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), one of the western world’s most powerful special interest lobby groups working through international bodies like the European Union and the United Nations.
It should be noted that the Dutch bishops actively promoted the so-called “liberalization” of practice and doctrine in the Catholic Church throughout the world.
The Dutch Catechism, published with the approbation of Pope Paul VI, spread the Dutch style of ultra-liberal Catholicism throughout the Catholic Church. So far did the Dutch Catechism diverge from Catholic doctrine that later editions were ordered to carry a caveat from the Pope that it was not a reliable source of authentic teaching.
Shortly after his election, a delegation of Dutch Bishops told Pope Francis of the upcoming closure of hundreds of churches, a number amounting to the greater part of the country’s Catholic establishment. The visiting Bishops told Pope Francis that a general shutdown has followed the Dutch Church becoming “drastically secularized.”
In an interview broadcast by Vatican Radio at the time, Cardinal Eijk said, “The number of practicing Catholics is diminishing very quickly.”
The Catholic Church in the Netherlands is in a state of crisis. Let us join in prayer to the Holy Spirit for our Dutch sisters and brothers. May there be a rebirth of Christianity and Catholicism throughout the Netherlands. May the Dutch see the chaos that results when Gospel values are exchanged for the failed promises and deceptions of secularism and materialism.
Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Thy Faithful and kindle in them the fire of Your Love.
In this post, I wish to focus our attention upon the Roman Catholic Church in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, a sovereign state and constitutional monarchy with territory in Western Europe and in the Carribean.
The four parts of the Kingdom—the Netherlands, Aruba, Curacao and Sint Maarten are constituent countries and participate on a basis of equality as partners in the Kingdom. In practice, however, most of the Kingdom's affairs are administered by the Netherlands on behalf of the entire Kingdom.
Although the number of Catholics in the Netherlands has decreased significantly in recent decades, the Catholic Church today represents the largest religious group.
A study conducted in 2012 showed that the Netherlands, once known as a Protestant country, was only 10% Protestant, the decrease resulting from defections.
As of December, 2013, there were a reported 3.9 million Catholics in the Netherlands, a figure representing 23.3% of the population but significantly down from the more than 40% which had been reported in the 1970s.
Between 2003 and 2013, the Catholic Church suffered a membership loss of over 589,000 members. And the number of Catholics continues to decrease by about a .5% annually, almost at par with the decrease in the number of Dutch citizens who identify themselves as Protestants.
On the other hand, Mulim immigrants continue to increase and currently represent approximately 6% of the population.
A study conducted in 2006 reported Sunday Mass attendance had decreased to less 1.2 percent of the Dutch population in 2006. More recent numbers for church attendance have not been published.
In 2015, the head of the Catholic Conference of Bishops in the Netherlands, Cardinal Willem Eijk, Archbishop of Utrecht, told the faithful to prepare for the closure of about a 1000 Catholic parishes, or about 2/3 of those in the country.
In his message, the Cardinal said that parishes were being suppressed because the numbers of parishioners actively practicing their Faith had dwindled to the point where the operation of the parish was no longer possible.
The decline of Dutch Catholicism has been well documented and much commented-upon, but this may be the first time that the head of the Dutch Catholic bishops has admitted to a specific cause: the post World War II shift to the extreme “progressivist” left on social and family issues.
In 2002, the Dutch were the first to legalize euthanasia. That decision was followed quickly by a “protocol” that allowed doctors to euthanize infants. At the present time, patients are being euthanized for depression or other treatable conditions.
The Netherlands has also taken an activist role in the global movement to abolish all legal recognition of the traditional family and to promote the Sexual Revolution throughout the world. One of the first to legalize prostitution, the country is also one of the main funding sources of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA), one of the western world’s most powerful special interest lobby groups working through international bodies like the European Union and the United Nations.
It should be noted that the Dutch bishops actively promoted the so-called “liberalization” of practice and doctrine in the Catholic Church throughout the world.
The Dutch Catechism, published with the approbation of Pope Paul VI, spread the Dutch style of ultra-liberal Catholicism throughout the Catholic Church. So far did the Dutch Catechism diverge from Catholic doctrine that later editions were ordered to carry a caveat from the Pope that it was not a reliable source of authentic teaching.
Shortly after his election, a delegation of Dutch Bishops told Pope Francis of the upcoming closure of hundreds of churches, a number amounting to the greater part of the country’s Catholic establishment. The visiting Bishops told Pope Francis that a general shutdown has followed the Dutch Church becoming “drastically secularized.”
In an interview broadcast by Vatican Radio at the time, Cardinal Eijk said, “The number of practicing Catholics is diminishing very quickly.”
The Catholic Church in the Netherlands is in a state of crisis. Let us join in prayer to the Holy Spirit for our Dutch sisters and brothers. May there be a rebirth of Christianity and Catholicism throughout the Netherlands. May the Dutch see the chaos that results when Gospel values are exchanged for the failed promises and deceptions of secularism and materialism.
Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Thy Faithful and kindle in them the fire of Your Love.
Sunday, February 26, 2017
GENDER IDENTITY NOW A PROTECTED CLASS IN TOLEDO: THE MADNESS NEVER ENDS
In yet another example of America having lost its rational and moral compass, the City Council in Toledo has unanimously approved an ordinance banning gender conversion therapy while declaring gender identity a protected class in the city, regardless of age.
Conversion therapy, which is designed to change a person’s sexual orientation, has been discredited by the medical establishment and denounced by gay and transgender groups.
The conversion-therapy ban was praised earlier in the day during a public hearing by supporters but was criticized by clergymen who asked if they would be prohibited from counseling people who are gay.
The law change, which states “no mental health provider shall engage in sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts with any person,” makes it a misdemeanor of the fourth degree to provide the therapy. Each day in violation is a separate offense — each with a maximum fine of $250.
Wesley Blood, a former pastor who works for the Northwest Ohio Baptist Association, questioned if religious counseling would be exempt.
Stephanie Tate, a Buddhist guiding teacher for Glass City Darma, stressed that there should not be an exemption for clergy to offer conversion therapy. “There is more than enough data that it is harmful,” Ms. Tate said.
Council President Steven Steel, who sponsored the change to the city’s existing discrimination ordinance, said conversion therapy is a “public health risk” and a “public health menace” because of its ill-effects on those who undergo the treatment.
“This law is necessary to protect the health and well-being of the citizens of Toledo,” said Alan Nichols, a University of Toledo Law School student. Mr. Nichols called it an “admirable piece of legislation” that is unlikely to be enacted on the federal level, which is why it is needed on municipal and state levels. Toledo’s law aims to protect anyone, regardless of age.
Mr. Nichols added Toledo is the first city to enact such an expansive conversion-therapy ban that does not only apply to minors.
refugee family that relocated recently to Toledo. One speaker recalled her immigration to America years ago and how she has paid income taxes annually — a reference to speculation that President Trump has for years paid no federal income taxes.
The hundreds gathered for the safe community resolution also applauded when council approved the conversion therapy ban and prohibition against gender identity discrimination.
This is the type of insanity which results when voters do not pay proper attention to the character and caliber of the candidates who present themselves for public office. Elections do have consequences. The apathy of citizens when it comes to not exercising their responsibility to vote has consequences as well.
The actions of the Toledo City Council highlight the hypocrisy of the radical left. For decades, we have heard the left woefully decry government interference with the practice of medicine when it comes to women’s reproductive rights.
Apparently, however, in Toledo, city ordinances trump mental health care professionals in the treatment of their patients.
The sane and sensible citizens of Toledo have a moral responsibility and duty to vote the entire City Council out of office since the vote on this rubbish passed unanimously.
Increasingly, America is becoming a haven for raising every manner of sexual perversion to the status of a legally protected class. At the same time, traditional expressions of normal heterosexuality are becoming less valued and less protected.
When will the madness end! Will it ever end?
Conversion therapy, which is designed to change a person’s sexual orientation, has been discredited by the medical establishment and denounced by gay and transgender groups.
The conversion-therapy ban was praised earlier in the day during a public hearing by supporters but was criticized by clergymen who asked if they would be prohibited from counseling people who are gay.
The law change, which states “no mental health provider shall engage in sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts with any person,” makes it a misdemeanor of the fourth degree to provide the therapy. Each day in violation is a separate offense — each with a maximum fine of $250.
Wesley Blood, a former pastor who works for the Northwest Ohio Baptist Association, questioned if religious counseling would be exempt.
Stephanie Tate, a Buddhist guiding teacher for Glass City Darma, stressed that there should not be an exemption for clergy to offer conversion therapy. “There is more than enough data that it is harmful,” Ms. Tate said.
Council President Steven Steel, who sponsored the change to the city’s existing discrimination ordinance, said conversion therapy is a “public health risk” and a “public health menace” because of its ill-effects on those who undergo the treatment.
“This law is necessary to protect the health and well-being of the citizens of Toledo,” said Alan Nichols, a University of Toledo Law School student. Mr. Nichols called it an “admirable piece of legislation” that is unlikely to be enacted on the federal level, which is why it is needed on municipal and state levels. Toledo’s law aims to protect anyone, regardless of age.
Mr. Nichols added Toledo is the first city to enact such an expansive conversion-therapy ban that does not only apply to minors.
refugee family that relocated recently to Toledo. One speaker recalled her immigration to America years ago and how she has paid income taxes annually — a reference to speculation that President Trump has for years paid no federal income taxes.
The hundreds gathered for the safe community resolution also applauded when council approved the conversion therapy ban and prohibition against gender identity discrimination.
This is the type of insanity which results when voters do not pay proper attention to the character and caliber of the candidates who present themselves for public office. Elections do have consequences. The apathy of citizens when it comes to not exercising their responsibility to vote has consequences as well.
The actions of the Toledo City Council highlight the hypocrisy of the radical left. For decades, we have heard the left woefully decry government interference with the practice of medicine when it comes to women’s reproductive rights.
Apparently, however, in Toledo, city ordinances trump mental health care professionals in the treatment of their patients.
The sane and sensible citizens of Toledo have a moral responsibility and duty to vote the entire City Council out of office since the vote on this rubbish passed unanimously.
Increasingly, America is becoming a haven for raising every manner of sexual perversion to the status of a legally protected class. At the same time, traditional expressions of normal heterosexuality are becoming less valued and less protected.
When will the madness end! Will it ever end?
Saturday, February 25, 2017
A FAILED FRANCIS EFFECT?
In the early days of his Pontificate, Vatican watchers predicted that the new Pope’s humility and charisma would prompt a “Francis effect” — bringing disaffected Catholics back to a Church that would no longer seem so forbidding and cold.
Now, almost four years later, the same predictions continue.
To a certain extent, things have changed.
Perceptions of the Papacy itself seem much more positive. Clearly, Pope Francis is far more popular than his predecessor. Sixty-three percent of American Catholics approve of him, especially on account of the fact that he has placed great emphasis on outreach to marginalized and disaffected Catholics.
Still, weekly Mass attendance by American Catholics hovers at an average of about 22 per cent.
In 2008, 50 percent of Millennials reported receiving ashes on Ash Wednesday, and 46 percent said they made some sacrifice beyond abstaining from meat on Fridays. Eight years later, only 41 percent reported receiving ashes and only 36 percent said they made an extra sacrifice, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.
In spite of Francis’ personal popularity, young people continue to drift away from the Church in large numbers.
And so, some ask why the Pope’s popularity has not yet re-invigorated the Church.
I believe the expectations were unrealistic. The Church's very structure and tradition tend to make it sluggish and impervious to attempts at renewal and reform. People are naturally loathe to change of any sort, especially when change affects values and beliefs with which they identify themselves.
Ultra-conservative voices continue to incite internal struggles over liturgy and ritual as well as over pastoral initiatives which are seen to threaten long held doctrinal and theological tenets.
The Church, by virtue of the Gospel it proclaims, necessarily finds itself in opposition to the secularism and materialism so prevalent in society today.
Catholics are frustrated by a Church which appears to give them little incentive to practice the Faith. They are frustrated by a Church that willfully refuses to acknowledge that it is out of touch with the challenges they face on a daily basis, with a Church that is cold and indifferent to their suffering, and with a Church more interested in preserving baroque rituals than with ministering to real people with real needs.
It is unfair to blame Francis for not effecting such a wished for renewal.
What is reassuring and what is hopeful is that the Holy Father has gotten things started, has begun to awaken some in the hierarchy to rediscover the true mission of the Church to be the living presence of the Lord’s Redemptive Love in the world. The Church has been asleep to this mission for centuries. It will take a long time, a long effort, and more than just one Pope to awaken it from its slumber.
Now, almost four years later, the same predictions continue.
To a certain extent, things have changed.
Perceptions of the Papacy itself seem much more positive. Clearly, Pope Francis is far more popular than his predecessor. Sixty-three percent of American Catholics approve of him, especially on account of the fact that he has placed great emphasis on outreach to marginalized and disaffected Catholics.
Still, weekly Mass attendance by American Catholics hovers at an average of about 22 per cent.
In 2008, 50 percent of Millennials reported receiving ashes on Ash Wednesday, and 46 percent said they made some sacrifice beyond abstaining from meat on Fridays. Eight years later, only 41 percent reported receiving ashes and only 36 percent said they made an extra sacrifice, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.
In spite of Francis’ personal popularity, young people continue to drift away from the Church in large numbers.
And so, some ask why the Pope’s popularity has not yet re-invigorated the Church.
I believe the expectations were unrealistic. The Church's very structure and tradition tend to make it sluggish and impervious to attempts at renewal and reform. People are naturally loathe to change of any sort, especially when change affects values and beliefs with which they identify themselves.
Ultra-conservative voices continue to incite internal struggles over liturgy and ritual as well as over pastoral initiatives which are seen to threaten long held doctrinal and theological tenets.
The Church, by virtue of the Gospel it proclaims, necessarily finds itself in opposition to the secularism and materialism so prevalent in society today.
Catholics are frustrated by a Church which appears to give them little incentive to practice the Faith. They are frustrated by a Church that willfully refuses to acknowledge that it is out of touch with the challenges they face on a daily basis, with a Church that is cold and indifferent to their suffering, and with a Church more interested in preserving baroque rituals than with ministering to real people with real needs.
It is unfair to blame Francis for not effecting such a wished for renewal.
What is reassuring and what is hopeful is that the Holy Father has gotten things started, has begun to awaken some in the hierarchy to rediscover the true mission of the Church to be the living presence of the Lord’s Redemptive Love in the world. The Church has been asleep to this mission for centuries. It will take a long time, a long effort, and more than just one Pope to awaken it from its slumber.
Friday, February 24, 2017
MORE SOCIAL JUSTICE BABBLE FROM YET ANOTHER ARCHBISHOP
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia released his new book, Strangers in a Strange Land.
I was prepared to go out to my local bookstore to purchase it today. However, I happened upon an interview with the Archbishop (posted on the National Review website) in which he discusses the main topic which the book addresses.
“Our task as Christians, “ he writes, “is to be healthy cells in society. We need to work as long as we can, in whatever we can, to nourish the good in our country and to encourage the seeds of renewal that can enliven our young people.”
He explains further, “ ... we’re all called to holiness. It’s always within our reach if we’re serious about pursuing it. The word “holy” comes from the Hebrew word qodesh, which doesn’t mean pious; it means “separate” or “other than.” The pursuit of holiness is the everyday work of separating ourselves from the distractions and addictions in the world that pull us away from God.”
And what are the virtues and failings of this "strange land" which the Archbishop describes?
He explains. "Instead of helping the poor, we go shopping. Instead of spending meaningful time with our families and friends, we look for videos on the Internet. We cocoon ourselves in a web of narcotics, from entertainment to self-help gurus to chemicals. We wrap ourselves in cheap comforts and empty slogans, and because there are never enough of them, we constantly look for more. We enjoy getting angry about problems that we can’t solve, and we overlook the child who wants us to watch her dance, or the woman on the street corner asking for food.”
So, here we go again, more social justice claptrap from yet another Archbishop.
Dear Archbishop, attempting to convince people with a platform of pious platitudes that provide for everyone’s needs is the goal not of Christianity but of Marxism.
The social justice “utopia” which Archbishop Chaput hints at cannot and never will be accomplished by human effort nor is it the mission of the Church.
Sadly, social justice is being presented to the Church as one’s Christian obligation. And so, social activism and religious humanism has become the new gospel. The mandate of the new evangelism is to make the world perfect by alleviating every need and tranquilizing every discomfort. This is not Christianity. It is Marxism wrapped in the cloak of evangelical counsel.
And so, Bishops and Pastors no longer speak about the Gospel that redeems humanity from sin but rather a type of salvation that comes from society by doing good, by taking from those who have more and giving to those who have less, by achieving a perfect equality among members in each and every society and culture. They seem perfectly willing to forget and ignore the fact that charity is inspired by and the result of personal sanctification, not the other way around.
The world will never be perfect because human beings are imperfect, because we enter this world wounded by sin: our intellects clouded by self-deception and our appetites disordered.
The Church used to preach that the Gospel was about an individual saying yes to Jesus, to His invitation to follow Him and thereby find salvation through the forgiveness of sin.
It seems the more the Church speaks nowadays the less and less I hear about forgiveness of sin and the more and more I hear about social justice and the liberal-progressive agendas it inspires from so many in positions of pastoral authority.
I am led to wonder whether or not our Bishops even believe any longer that the Gospel really is about Jesus dying to redeem us from our sins.
Anyway, I’m glad I read the interviews Archbishop Chaput has given about Strangers in a Strange Land. They saved me the cost of a book which would have wasted my time reading yet another episcopal manifesto on the virtues of social justice.
I was prepared to go out to my local bookstore to purchase it today. However, I happened upon an interview with the Archbishop (posted on the National Review website) in which he discusses the main topic which the book addresses.
“Our task as Christians, “ he writes, “is to be healthy cells in society. We need to work as long as we can, in whatever we can, to nourish the good in our country and to encourage the seeds of renewal that can enliven our young people.”
He explains further, “ ... we’re all called to holiness. It’s always within our reach if we’re serious about pursuing it. The word “holy” comes from the Hebrew word qodesh, which doesn’t mean pious; it means “separate” or “other than.” The pursuit of holiness is the everyday work of separating ourselves from the distractions and addictions in the world that pull us away from God.”
And what are the virtues and failings of this "strange land" which the Archbishop describes?
He explains. "Instead of helping the poor, we go shopping. Instead of spending meaningful time with our families and friends, we look for videos on the Internet. We cocoon ourselves in a web of narcotics, from entertainment to self-help gurus to chemicals. We wrap ourselves in cheap comforts and empty slogans, and because there are never enough of them, we constantly look for more. We enjoy getting angry about problems that we can’t solve, and we overlook the child who wants us to watch her dance, or the woman on the street corner asking for food.”
So, here we go again, more social justice claptrap from yet another Archbishop.
Dear Archbishop, attempting to convince people with a platform of pious platitudes that provide for everyone’s needs is the goal not of Christianity but of Marxism.
The social justice “utopia” which Archbishop Chaput hints at cannot and never will be accomplished by human effort nor is it the mission of the Church.
Sadly, social justice is being presented to the Church as one’s Christian obligation. And so, social activism and religious humanism has become the new gospel. The mandate of the new evangelism is to make the world perfect by alleviating every need and tranquilizing every discomfort. This is not Christianity. It is Marxism wrapped in the cloak of evangelical counsel.
And so, Bishops and Pastors no longer speak about the Gospel that redeems humanity from sin but rather a type of salvation that comes from society by doing good, by taking from those who have more and giving to those who have less, by achieving a perfect equality among members in each and every society and culture. They seem perfectly willing to forget and ignore the fact that charity is inspired by and the result of personal sanctification, not the other way around.
The world will never be perfect because human beings are imperfect, because we enter this world wounded by sin: our intellects clouded by self-deception and our appetites disordered.
The Church used to preach that the Gospel was about an individual saying yes to Jesus, to His invitation to follow Him and thereby find salvation through the forgiveness of sin.
It seems the more the Church speaks nowadays the less and less I hear about forgiveness of sin and the more and more I hear about social justice and the liberal-progressive agendas it inspires from so many in positions of pastoral authority.
I am led to wonder whether or not our Bishops even believe any longer that the Gospel really is about Jesus dying to redeem us from our sins.
Anyway, I’m glad I read the interviews Archbishop Chaput has given about Strangers in a Strange Land. They saved me the cost of a book which would have wasted my time reading yet another episcopal manifesto on the virtues of social justice.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
CARDINAL PAROLIN'S MISTAKEN VIEW OF IMMIGRATION
The Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, recently said the Holy See is concerned about the emergence of populism.
The Chief Vatican diplomat was speaking after meeting with Italian President Sergio Mattarella, Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, and other officials for an annual summit at the Italian Embassy to the Holy See, commemorating the signing of the Lateran Pacts between the Holy See and Italy in 1929.
Cardinal Parolin said closing in on oneself is never a good policy.
The inability to welcome and integrate can be dangerous the Cardinal said. “History teaches us this, and we hope that in this sense it will not be repeated."
The vote by Great Britain to leave the European Union, as well as the rise of “Eurosceptic" parties in other countries, has been causing a crisis within European institutions.
It is obvious there are many tensions, many difficulties, but they are also able to become, as they say, an opportune moment - to reset the political relationship on a new basis, the Cardinal said.
Cardinal Parolin told journalists the two sides also spoke about social issues in Italy, especially emigration, unemployment, and youth.
The good Cardinal seems incapable of distinguishing between populism and national sovereignty.
The fact which he does not wish to admit or reference is that the wave of Muslim immigrants to Europe has resulted in social, political and cultural chaos. Muslims show no willingness to assimilate into the various cultures and societies which have welcomed them. Germany is in a state of collapse. The Muslim immigration into Belgium and the Netherlands has resulted in street fighting and civil unrest. Already, Spain and France have begun to take intelligent and long overdue steps to curb Muslim immigration into their countries and to require the immigrant community to begin to assimilate into their respective societies or face deportation.
Cardinal Parolin states a true Gospel counsel: welcome the stranger as a guest. But, unfortunately, he forgets that the Gospel also requires the guest to honor the host and be gracious and grateful.
The Muslim crisis in Europe is the result of ill-conceived notions of globalization and failed attempt to democratize an ancient Mideast religious culture that remains unwilling and uncompromising of its violent response to Western Civilization.
The people of Great Britain had their fill of the nonsense and voiced their disgust at the ballot box.
They and the rest of the peoples of Europe have every moral and legal right to protect their society and their cultural heritage.
The fact that they have finally realized that their leaders have betrayed them is not a sign of the rise of populism but a return to realism and common-sense.
The Chief Vatican diplomat was speaking after meeting with Italian President Sergio Mattarella, Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, and other officials for an annual summit at the Italian Embassy to the Holy See, commemorating the signing of the Lateran Pacts between the Holy See and Italy in 1929.
Cardinal Parolin said closing in on oneself is never a good policy.
The inability to welcome and integrate can be dangerous the Cardinal said. “History teaches us this, and we hope that in this sense it will not be repeated."
The vote by Great Britain to leave the European Union, as well as the rise of “Eurosceptic" parties in other countries, has been causing a crisis within European institutions.
It is obvious there are many tensions, many difficulties, but they are also able to become, as they say, an opportune moment - to reset the political relationship on a new basis, the Cardinal said.
Cardinal Parolin told journalists the two sides also spoke about social issues in Italy, especially emigration, unemployment, and youth.
The good Cardinal seems incapable of distinguishing between populism and national sovereignty.
The fact which he does not wish to admit or reference is that the wave of Muslim immigrants to Europe has resulted in social, political and cultural chaos. Muslims show no willingness to assimilate into the various cultures and societies which have welcomed them. Germany is in a state of collapse. The Muslim immigration into Belgium and the Netherlands has resulted in street fighting and civil unrest. Already, Spain and France have begun to take intelligent and long overdue steps to curb Muslim immigration into their countries and to require the immigrant community to begin to assimilate into their respective societies or face deportation.
Cardinal Parolin states a true Gospel counsel: welcome the stranger as a guest. But, unfortunately, he forgets that the Gospel also requires the guest to honor the host and be gracious and grateful.
The Muslim crisis in Europe is the result of ill-conceived notions of globalization and failed attempt to democratize an ancient Mideast religious culture that remains unwilling and uncompromising of its violent response to Western Civilization.
The people of Great Britain had their fill of the nonsense and voiced their disgust at the ballot box.
They and the rest of the peoples of Europe have every moral and legal right to protect their society and their cultural heritage.
The fact that they have finally realized that their leaders have betrayed them is not a sign of the rise of populism but a return to realism and common-sense.
Wednesday, February 22, 2017
PAPAL STEREOTYPE OF TERRORISM DEBUNKED
The Holy Father insists that economic inequality and poverty are the breeding grounds for the radicalization which leads to terrorism. The evidence clearly does not support the Papal paradigm.
Rather, youth, wealth, and a full-time education are risk factors associated with violent radicalization, according to a British study released Wednesday. The research challenges commonly-held notions in the West of what makes an individual prone to sympathizing with terrorist acts.
Researchers from Queen Mary University in London surveyed more than 600 men and women of Muslim heritage living in London and Bradford to assess their sympathy or condemnation for 16 different actions that are broadly defined as “terrorism,” such as the use of suicide bombs "to fight injustice," for example.
Most experts suggest that radicalization is a staged process that begins with a pre-radicalization phase, marked by the onset of sympathetic feelings towards violent acts. The study focused on those sentiments, which might make an individual particularly vulnerable to persuasion by extremists who seek recruits.
“We’re offering a new model for sympathies as an early phase of radicalization that can be measured,” Kamaldeep Bhui, the study's lead author and a cultural psychology professor at the university, said.
While just 2.4 % of people expressed some sympathy for violence overall, researchers found that those under the age 20, those in full-time education rather than employment, and those with annual incomes above $125,000 were more prone to express sympathy for violent protests and "terrorism."
“One explanation for homegrown terrorism in high-income countries is that it’s about inequality-related grievances," Bhui said in a phone interview. "We were surprised that the inequality paradigm seems not to be supported. The study essentially seemed to show that those born in the U.K. consistent with the radicalization paradigm are actually more affluent or well off.”
Two other findings stood in conflict with prevailing stereotypes about so-called homegrown terrorism in the West: Immigrants and those who speak a non-English language at home, as well as those who reported suffering from anxiety or depression, were less likely to express sympathy for terrorist acts.
The Queen Mary team hopes its findings better inform early intervention and preventative counterterrorism strategy.
“Once terrorists are captured, there is often debate about what motivated their behavior,” Bhui said. “Whether they came from disadvantaged backgrounds, have mental health issues or a criminal record, and whether their acts were purely political. Characteristics identified during interrogation are uncritically assumed to be of relevance to the early phase of radicalization.”
Increasingly, the perpetrators of high-profile terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe are not foreign operatives but citizens who worked or were educated in the countries they attack. Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Boston marathon terrorists who murdered three people, both fit that profile. Two British Muslim converts were sentenced last month for the brutal killing of a British soldier. And many are “lone wolves” with few ties to other extremists and no history of criminal behavior. Terry Lee Loewen, who allegedly plotted to detonate a bomb in the Wichita, Kansas airport, is yet another example.
The U.S. intelligence community has begun to recognize that its counterterrorism strategy is ill-equipped to predict attackers who do not fit their traditional paradigms. “Law enforcement activities directed solely against an individual’s illegal activity after radicalization likely start too late and do not provide a sufficient answer to the complex phenomenon of homegrown Islamist terrorism," said a 2011 FBI report titled “The Evolution of Terrorism since 9/11.”
The common threads running through many acts of violent radicalism in countries like the U.K. or U.S. are a sense of isolation and a desire to find a more potent identity, Bhui said. Many of these links have been studied anecdotally, he said, but they have not previously been supported by empirical evidence.
The apparent correlation between being a student and being prone to radicalism is one example. “There’s been a lot of concern about university campuses being hotbeds of violent radicalization, or at least that’s how it’s described in the newspapers,” Bhui noted. “It could be that education is a transitional phase and young people are trying to identify with another way of thinking. When people are undergoing education, they are vulnerable to all sorts of influences.”
Is it little wonder, then, when the Church has lost its influence in the world that impressionable minds would find in Islam an ideology so overwhelmingly accepted and rigorously observed in the world today?
It would appear that the Church shares in the responsibility for the raise of radical terrorism in its failure to proclaim the Gospel in a meaningful and inspirational way to the world.
Pope Francis needs to inform himself of the dynamic of radicalization and begin to address its root causes. Our young people are awash in a sea of secularism and materialism which promises little other than disappointment and despair. The Church does not speak to them and offers them no light out of the darkness. This is the disillusionment which begets radicalization and terror.
Rather, youth, wealth, and a full-time education are risk factors associated with violent radicalization, according to a British study released Wednesday. The research challenges commonly-held notions in the West of what makes an individual prone to sympathizing with terrorist acts.
Researchers from Queen Mary University in London surveyed more than 600 men and women of Muslim heritage living in London and Bradford to assess their sympathy or condemnation for 16 different actions that are broadly defined as “terrorism,” such as the use of suicide bombs "to fight injustice," for example.
Most experts suggest that radicalization is a staged process that begins with a pre-radicalization phase, marked by the onset of sympathetic feelings towards violent acts. The study focused on those sentiments, which might make an individual particularly vulnerable to persuasion by extremists who seek recruits.
“We’re offering a new model for sympathies as an early phase of radicalization that can be measured,” Kamaldeep Bhui, the study's lead author and a cultural psychology professor at the university, said.
While just 2.4 % of people expressed some sympathy for violence overall, researchers found that those under the age 20, those in full-time education rather than employment, and those with annual incomes above $125,000 were more prone to express sympathy for violent protests and "terrorism."
“One explanation for homegrown terrorism in high-income countries is that it’s about inequality-related grievances," Bhui said in a phone interview. "We were surprised that the inequality paradigm seems not to be supported. The study essentially seemed to show that those born in the U.K. consistent with the radicalization paradigm are actually more affluent or well off.”
Two other findings stood in conflict with prevailing stereotypes about so-called homegrown terrorism in the West: Immigrants and those who speak a non-English language at home, as well as those who reported suffering from anxiety or depression, were less likely to express sympathy for terrorist acts.
The Queen Mary team hopes its findings better inform early intervention and preventative counterterrorism strategy.
“Once terrorists are captured, there is often debate about what motivated their behavior,” Bhui said. “Whether they came from disadvantaged backgrounds, have mental health issues or a criminal record, and whether their acts were purely political. Characteristics identified during interrogation are uncritically assumed to be of relevance to the early phase of radicalization.”
Increasingly, the perpetrators of high-profile terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe are not foreign operatives but citizens who worked or were educated in the countries they attack. Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Boston marathon terrorists who murdered three people, both fit that profile. Two British Muslim converts were sentenced last month for the brutal killing of a British soldier. And many are “lone wolves” with few ties to other extremists and no history of criminal behavior. Terry Lee Loewen, who allegedly plotted to detonate a bomb in the Wichita, Kansas airport, is yet another example.
The U.S. intelligence community has begun to recognize that its counterterrorism strategy is ill-equipped to predict attackers who do not fit their traditional paradigms. “Law enforcement activities directed solely against an individual’s illegal activity after radicalization likely start too late and do not provide a sufficient answer to the complex phenomenon of homegrown Islamist terrorism," said a 2011 FBI report titled “The Evolution of Terrorism since 9/11.”
The common threads running through many acts of violent radicalism in countries like the U.K. or U.S. are a sense of isolation and a desire to find a more potent identity, Bhui said. Many of these links have been studied anecdotally, he said, but they have not previously been supported by empirical evidence.
The apparent correlation between being a student and being prone to radicalism is one example. “There’s been a lot of concern about university campuses being hotbeds of violent radicalization, or at least that’s how it’s described in the newspapers,” Bhui noted. “It could be that education is a transitional phase and young people are trying to identify with another way of thinking. When people are undergoing education, they are vulnerable to all sorts of influences.”
Is it little wonder, then, when the Church has lost its influence in the world that impressionable minds would find in Islam an ideology so overwhelmingly accepted and rigorously observed in the world today?
It would appear that the Church shares in the responsibility for the raise of radical terrorism in its failure to proclaim the Gospel in a meaningful and inspirational way to the world.
Pope Francis needs to inform himself of the dynamic of radicalization and begin to address its root causes. Our young people are awash in a sea of secularism and materialism which promises little other than disappointment and despair. The Church does not speak to them and offers them no light out of the darkness. This is the disillusionment which begets radicalization and terror.
Monday, February 20, 2017
FORMER ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER CRITICIZES PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REFUGEE BAN
In a report posted on the BBC website, Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the former Archbishop of Westminster, said the temporary ban imposed by President Trump on refugee admissions to the United States supports a false notion that Islam and Christianity are in conflict.
The Cardinal accuses the President of “overreacting” and said the ban would “increase the determination of terrorists to make US objects a target.”
He, likewise, characterized the protests against the President that were held in the United Kingdom as “hysterical overreaction.”
The Cardinal stated: “British opposition and hysterical overreaction to Trump itself poses a danger to the constructive relationship we should have with him, or indeed, any new and untested American president. "He and his team are learning the art of governing. Though the executive order banning travel from certain destabilized Muslim-majority countries has misfired, the principle behind the order is surely not in itself wrong.”
Once again, misguided Church leaders continue to involve themselves in political disputes in which they have no competence or authority.
I have repeatedly pointed out the consistent teaching of the Church regarding the right of the state to protect its sovereign borders. The right to do so is firmly entrenched in both civil and ecclesiastical law.
The duly elected President of the United States is carrying through with the enactment of a legitimate order to protect the sovereignty and national security of the United States. He made his intention to do so crystal clear throughout his campaign. The citizenry of the country understood his promises to them and elected him to the highest office in the land precisely on account of those promises.
Whether or not the Executive Order of the President is to the liking of the former Archbishop of Westminster is irrelevant. The Cardinal has no expertise which would invest his remarks with any particular wisdom or counsel.
I suggest His Eminence seek the guidance afforded by another member of the College, His Eminence Cardinal Wuerl, who wrote most elegantly in his pastoral letter to Catholics in the Archdiocese of Washington, DC, reminding them that the mission the Church is to lead mankind to the truth and redemptive grace of Jesus Christ and not to engage in what are purely political matters of the state.
In other words and respectfully, your Eminence, it would be best to keep your political opinions to yourself for they serve neither the interest of good government nor the preaching of the Gospel.
The Cardinal accuses the President of “overreacting” and said the ban would “increase the determination of terrorists to make US objects a target.”
He, likewise, characterized the protests against the President that were held in the United Kingdom as “hysterical overreaction.”
The Cardinal stated: “British opposition and hysterical overreaction to Trump itself poses a danger to the constructive relationship we should have with him, or indeed, any new and untested American president. "He and his team are learning the art of governing. Though the executive order banning travel from certain destabilized Muslim-majority countries has misfired, the principle behind the order is surely not in itself wrong.”
Once again, misguided Church leaders continue to involve themselves in political disputes in which they have no competence or authority.
I have repeatedly pointed out the consistent teaching of the Church regarding the right of the state to protect its sovereign borders. The right to do so is firmly entrenched in both civil and ecclesiastical law.
The duly elected President of the United States is carrying through with the enactment of a legitimate order to protect the sovereignty and national security of the United States. He made his intention to do so crystal clear throughout his campaign. The citizenry of the country understood his promises to them and elected him to the highest office in the land precisely on account of those promises.
Whether or not the Executive Order of the President is to the liking of the former Archbishop of Westminster is irrelevant. The Cardinal has no expertise which would invest his remarks with any particular wisdom or counsel.
I suggest His Eminence seek the guidance afforded by another member of the College, His Eminence Cardinal Wuerl, who wrote most elegantly in his pastoral letter to Catholics in the Archdiocese of Washington, DC, reminding them that the mission the Church is to lead mankind to the truth and redemptive grace of Jesus Christ and not to engage in what are purely political matters of the state.
In other words and respectfully, your Eminence, it would be best to keep your political opinions to yourself for they serve neither the interest of good government nor the preaching of the Gospel.
Sunday, February 19, 2017
US BISHOPS RISK BACKLASH FOR SUPPORTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AGENDA
The website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has posted the following statement made by Bishop Joe S. Vásquez of Austin, Texas, chairman of the Committee on Migration:
Fortunately, the USCCB does not speak with unanimity for all the Bishops of the United States, even though we can most likely presume many of the American Bishops agree with the Migration Committee's remarks.
Unfortunately, the Migration Committee has overstated both the intent and consequence of the Executive Order, referencing the President's action as though it were permanent as well as unwarranted.
The USCCB never been reserved in voicing its enthusiastic support of illegal immigration, seeing it as the hope of keeping pews filled in the wake of the mass exodus of American Catholics. Certainly, then, one understands the Migration Committee's foreboding over the promised agenda of the new President to hold illegal immigrants to observance of the rule of law.
I have written extensively about my chagrin over the members of the Catholic hierarchy who encourage and defend the violation of the dutifully and rightly enacted immigration policies of this country. For the eight years of the Obama administration, those laws were routinely violated and ignored with much support from many Catholic Bishops.
In the past election, the American People clearly indicated their frustration with the utter disregard which Obama and the Democratic Party showed in not applying the due process of law toward those whose illegal presence in this country is a criminal act.
Americans have voted the Democratic liberal agenda out of power and are enthusiastic and energetic in their desire to commit the liberal attitudes and agendas to the dust of history.
Those American Bishops in the mindset of the Migration Committee's statement need to be put on notice that American Catholics may be just as willing to reject their authority should they continue to urge criminal actions. American Catholics are prepared to vote with their feet by walking away from the Church when it is seen to encourage and enable illegal activity.
Whatever the Bishops intentions, they must remember that just laws (that is reasonable ordinances enacted by rightful authority to preserve and protect the common good) are morally binding.
No matter how poignant their pleas for compassion, the end does not justify the means.
The disregard the Bishops advocate for immigration laws may someday devolve to a disregard for the laws which protect freedom of speech or the exercise of religion. You can't do violence to one area of the law without doing violence to the rule of law itself. Furthermore, you can't insist that ecclesiastic authority requires respectful observance, while disregarding civil authority by encouraging those who violate rightful laws.
"We strongly disagree with the Executive Order's halting refugee admissions. We believe that now more than ever, welcoming newcomers and refugees is an act of love and hope. We will continue to engage the new administration, as we have all administrations for the duration of the current refugee program, now almost forty years. We will work vigorously to ensure that refugees are humanely welcomed in collaboration with Catholic Charities without sacrificing our security or our core values as Americans, and to ensure that families may be reunified with their loved ones."
Fortunately, the USCCB does not speak with unanimity for all the Bishops of the United States, even though we can most likely presume many of the American Bishops agree with the Migration Committee's remarks.
Unfortunately, the Migration Committee has overstated both the intent and consequence of the Executive Order, referencing the President's action as though it were permanent as well as unwarranted.
The USCCB never been reserved in voicing its enthusiastic support of illegal immigration, seeing it as the hope of keeping pews filled in the wake of the mass exodus of American Catholics. Certainly, then, one understands the Migration Committee's foreboding over the promised agenda of the new President to hold illegal immigrants to observance of the rule of law.
I have written extensively about my chagrin over the members of the Catholic hierarchy who encourage and defend the violation of the dutifully and rightly enacted immigration policies of this country. For the eight years of the Obama administration, those laws were routinely violated and ignored with much support from many Catholic Bishops.
In the past election, the American People clearly indicated their frustration with the utter disregard which Obama and the Democratic Party showed in not applying the due process of law toward those whose illegal presence in this country is a criminal act.
Americans have voted the Democratic liberal agenda out of power and are enthusiastic and energetic in their desire to commit the liberal attitudes and agendas to the dust of history.
Those American Bishops in the mindset of the Migration Committee's statement need to be put on notice that American Catholics may be just as willing to reject their authority should they continue to urge criminal actions. American Catholics are prepared to vote with their feet by walking away from the Church when it is seen to encourage and enable illegal activity.
Whatever the Bishops intentions, they must remember that just laws (that is reasonable ordinances enacted by rightful authority to preserve and protect the common good) are morally binding.
No matter how poignant their pleas for compassion, the end does not justify the means.
The disregard the Bishops advocate for immigration laws may someday devolve to a disregard for the laws which protect freedom of speech or the exercise of religion. You can't do violence to one area of the law without doing violence to the rule of law itself. Furthermore, you can't insist that ecclesiastic authority requires respectful observance, while disregarding civil authority by encouraging those who violate rightful laws.
Friday, February 17, 2017
2017: A GRUELING YEAR FOR POPE FRANCIS AND AN EXCITING YEAR FOR THE CHURCH
On March 13th, Pope Francis will celebrate the 4th anniversary of his election as the Bishop of Rome and the Vicar of Christ for the Universal Church.
As that anniversary fast approaches, the Holy Father is facing yet another year of his Pontificate being challenged by a Vatican bureaucracy sluggish and resistant to the numerous reforms he has proposed within the offices and corridors of the Holy See.
A small but vocal group of critics have signaled that they are prepared to submit a “formal act of correction” to Francis for allowing local Conferences of Bishops to develop and enact policies that would permit remarried and sexually active divorced Catholics to Holy Communion.
What practical effect this challenge to Papal authority will ultimately have is anyone’s guess.
I suppose that, for the vast majority of Catholics, conservative allies will only succeed in bringing more criticism upon the Church, confirming accusations that the institution is self-absorbed and out-of-touch with those it claims to serve.
Sadly, those who remain entrenched in their lockstep loyalty to a bygone era seem incapable of realizing and admitting that they comprise a small minority of the Catholic population.
And, no matter how much they wish to cast themselves as self-appointed defenders of the faith, they are and will remain ineffectual vestiges of a so-called “golden age of theology and liturgy" which never really existed or left any indelible imprint upon the Church in the modern world.
Rather, the vast majority of the Catholic faithful appear enthusiastic and supportive of Pope Francis’ openness to the modern world and see his love and concern for the marginalized as the embodiment of the Gospel virtues of charity and mercy.
The Catholic community overall embraces the sincerity of this Pope as he opens his arms to embrace those the Church seemed to have forgotten or harshly judged for centuries.
And so, it very well may be that, whatever challenges Curial bureaucrats or entrenched conservative Cardinals and theologians mount against Francis, they will have little effect either upon Francis’ pursuit of his Vatican II inspired reforms or the enthusiasm with which they are received by overwhelming numbers of the Catholic faithful who see this Pope as a genuine and sincere Pastor of souls.
By now, we already know much of what’s on Pope Francis’s plate in 2017, including two confirmed trips - Fatima in May, and India and Bangladesh probably later in the year - and the likelihood of a couple more, one to Africa (perhaps Congo and South Sudan) and one to Latin America (beginning with Colombia.)
The Pontiff will also make quick stops in Milan and Genoa inside Italy, meet Bishops from around the world in Rome making ad limina visits, receive dignitaries and heads of state, preside over the usual liturgies for Holy Week, continue meeting with his C9 Council of Cardinal advisers to wrap up an overhaul of the Roman Curia, and so on.
The Pope is 80 years of age. Time becomes increasingly limited for Francis to continue doing something arguably more important than almost anything else in terms of framing his legacy and shaping culture in the Church, which is naming and appointing Bishops
In keeping with Church policy, every one of the world’s more than 5,000 Catholic bishops is expected to submit a letter of resignation when he turns 75. It’s up to the Pope whether to accept it, but 75 is generally the threshold at which thoughts of a transition begin to beckon.
In major Vatican positions, officials who are already past 75, or who will turn 75 in 2017, include:
Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts
Cardinal Angelo Amato, Congregation for the Causes of Saints
Cardinal Beniamino Stella, Congregation for Clergy
Cardinal George Pell, Secretariat for the Economy
Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, Council for Culture
Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Synod of Bishops
Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Pontifical Academy of Sciences/Social Sciences.
Expert Vatican watchers agree that most will stay on in their positions. The Pope has already openly confirmed Cardinal Pell beyond his 75th birthday, and Cardinals Coccopalmiero, Stella, Ravasi, Baldisseri and Sánchez Sorondo are all seen as secure in their positions as well.
The one to watch may be Cardinal Amato, who is rumored to be considering retirement as he turns 79 in June.
If Francis does replace him, that would leave only the Congregation for Bishops under Canadian Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under German Cardinal Gerhard Müller, and the Economy Secretariat under Cardinal Pell as major Vatican offices not led by Prefects either appointed by Francis or who agree with the Pope on most major issues.
In terms of Prelates in dioceses around the world, here is a list of those already over 75 or who will cross that milestone in 2017:
Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo, Kinshasa
Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Washington, D.C.
Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, Durban
Cardinal Angelo Scola, Milan
Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, Mexico City
Cardinal André Vingt-Trois, Paris
Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, Tegucigalpa
Cardinal John Ton Hon, Hong Kong
Archbishop Peter Okada, Tokyo
Once again, there’s no law that says the Pope must replace any of them, and in fact most will probably continue on for a while, prominent among them Cardinal Wuerl in Washington.
It promises to be an exciting year for the Universal Church and an exhausting one for the Holy Father.
Let us pray for Pope Francis everyday. May the Lord bless him, keep him in good health and continue to inspire him to be the Good Shepherd of the Church in the kindness and compassion of his actions, words and spirit.
Viva il Papa.....Long Live the Pope!
As that anniversary fast approaches, the Holy Father is facing yet another year of his Pontificate being challenged by a Vatican bureaucracy sluggish and resistant to the numerous reforms he has proposed within the offices and corridors of the Holy See.
A small but vocal group of critics have signaled that they are prepared to submit a “formal act of correction” to Francis for allowing local Conferences of Bishops to develop and enact policies that would permit remarried and sexually active divorced Catholics to Holy Communion.
What practical effect this challenge to Papal authority will ultimately have is anyone’s guess.
I suppose that, for the vast majority of Catholics, conservative allies will only succeed in bringing more criticism upon the Church, confirming accusations that the institution is self-absorbed and out-of-touch with those it claims to serve.
Sadly, those who remain entrenched in their lockstep loyalty to a bygone era seem incapable of realizing and admitting that they comprise a small minority of the Catholic population.
And, no matter how much they wish to cast themselves as self-appointed defenders of the faith, they are and will remain ineffectual vestiges of a so-called “golden age of theology and liturgy" which never really existed or left any indelible imprint upon the Church in the modern world.
Rather, the vast majority of the Catholic faithful appear enthusiastic and supportive of Pope Francis’ openness to the modern world and see his love and concern for the marginalized as the embodiment of the Gospel virtues of charity and mercy.
The Catholic community overall embraces the sincerity of this Pope as he opens his arms to embrace those the Church seemed to have forgotten or harshly judged for centuries.
And so, it very well may be that, whatever challenges Curial bureaucrats or entrenched conservative Cardinals and theologians mount against Francis, they will have little effect either upon Francis’ pursuit of his Vatican II inspired reforms or the enthusiasm with which they are received by overwhelming numbers of the Catholic faithful who see this Pope as a genuine and sincere Pastor of souls.
By now, we already know much of what’s on Pope Francis’s plate in 2017, including two confirmed trips - Fatima in May, and India and Bangladesh probably later in the year - and the likelihood of a couple more, one to Africa (perhaps Congo and South Sudan) and one to Latin America (beginning with Colombia.)
The Pontiff will also make quick stops in Milan and Genoa inside Italy, meet Bishops from around the world in Rome making ad limina visits, receive dignitaries and heads of state, preside over the usual liturgies for Holy Week, continue meeting with his C9 Council of Cardinal advisers to wrap up an overhaul of the Roman Curia, and so on.
The Pope is 80 years of age. Time becomes increasingly limited for Francis to continue doing something arguably more important than almost anything else in terms of framing his legacy and shaping culture in the Church, which is naming and appointing Bishops
In keeping with Church policy, every one of the world’s more than 5,000 Catholic bishops is expected to submit a letter of resignation when he turns 75. It’s up to the Pope whether to accept it, but 75 is generally the threshold at which thoughts of a transition begin to beckon.
In major Vatican positions, officials who are already past 75, or who will turn 75 in 2017, include:
Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts
Cardinal Angelo Amato, Congregation for the Causes of Saints
Cardinal Beniamino Stella, Congregation for Clergy
Cardinal George Pell, Secretariat for the Economy
Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, Council for Culture
Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Synod of Bishops
Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, Pontifical Academy of Sciences/Social Sciences.
Expert Vatican watchers agree that most will stay on in their positions. The Pope has already openly confirmed Cardinal Pell beyond his 75th birthday, and Cardinals Coccopalmiero, Stella, Ravasi, Baldisseri and Sánchez Sorondo are all seen as secure in their positions as well.
The one to watch may be Cardinal Amato, who is rumored to be considering retirement as he turns 79 in June.
If Francis does replace him, that would leave only the Congregation for Bishops under Canadian Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under German Cardinal Gerhard Müller, and the Economy Secretariat under Cardinal Pell as major Vatican offices not led by Prefects either appointed by Francis or who agree with the Pope on most major issues.
In terms of Prelates in dioceses around the world, here is a list of those already over 75 or who will cross that milestone in 2017:
Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo, Kinshasa
Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Washington, D.C.
Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier, Durban
Cardinal Angelo Scola, Milan
Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, Mexico City
Cardinal André Vingt-Trois, Paris
Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, Tegucigalpa
Cardinal John Ton Hon, Hong Kong
Archbishop Peter Okada, Tokyo
Once again, there’s no law that says the Pope must replace any of them, and in fact most will probably continue on for a while, prominent among them Cardinal Wuerl in Washington.
It promises to be an exciting year for the Universal Church and an exhausting one for the Holy Father.
Let us pray for Pope Francis everyday. May the Lord bless him, keep him in good health and continue to inspire him to be the Good Shepherd of the Church in the kindness and compassion of his actions, words and spirit.
Viva il Papa.....Long Live the Pope!
Thursday, February 16, 2017
IS CHURCH DISCIPLINE REGARDING READMISSION OF DIVORCED AND REMARRIED TO THE SACRAMENTS NOW IN DOUBT?
Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmiero, the President of the Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts (the body charged with issuing binding interpretations of ecclesiastical legal texts, notably the Code of Canon Law), has written what amounts to an analysis of Amoris Laetitia (AL). The Cardinal holds that Catholics living in “irregular" marital situations may and should, after “an appropriate period of discernment”, be admitted to the sacraments of Reconciliation and holy Communion.
The Cardinal writes: “The divorced and remarried, de facto couples, those cohabiting, are certainly not models of unions in sync with Catholic Doctrine, but the Church cannot look the other way. Therefore, the sacraments of Reconciliation and of Communion must be given even to those so-called wounded families and to however many who, despite living in situations not in line with traditional matrimonial canons, express the sincere desire to approach the sacraments after an appropriate period of discernment . . . Yes, therefore, to admission to the sacraments for those who, despite living in irregular situations, sincerely ask for admission into the fullness of ecclesial life, it is a gesture of openness and profound mercy on the part of Mother Church, who does not leave behind any of her children, aware that absolute perfection is a precious gift, but one which cannot be reached by everyone.”
I contend that the real import of the Cardinal’s book is not his particular analysis of AL which is very much in agreement with the interpretation of the Bishops of Malta and Germany, Argentina and a number of dioceses in the United States. Rather, the importance of this analysis is the fact that some of the most influential members of the College of Cardinals so radically disagree among themselves about AL and have made those disagreements public.
Let’s remember that, just a few weeks ago, Cardinal Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an interview in which he resolutely upheld the traditional practice of withholding Penance and Holy Communion from divorced-and-remarried Catholics.
And so, the Church’s arguably two highest-ranking cardinals in the areas of canonical interpretation and the protection of doctrine and morals are in public, plain, and diametric opposition with each other concerning a crucial canonical and Sacramental practice.
Where does this leave us then?
In the course of studying for my degree in Canon Law, my professors often reminded all their students of the fundamental principle doubtful laws do not bind.
Given the contradictory interpretations of AL, can one not reasonably hold that the Church’s discipline regarding the admission of divorced and sexually active remarried couples to Penance and Holy Communion is now in doubt?
And how are Catholics (and I include Pastors of souls in that designation) to resolve any doubts they may have regarding the implications of Amoris Laetitia? Who are they to listen to? Which interpretation is correct and therefore binding?
At this stage of the argument, I cannot answer that question with any degree of moral or legal certainty.
And so, Catholics are left to make up their own minds about how Church teaching and practice applies to them.
Perhaps, that is both the real intention and real consequence which the Holy Father and the Synod had in mind in the first place, to leave the matter to the judgment of real people in real life situations.
It certainly is a “brave new world” for many of us in the Priesthood. It is an alternate universe for lifelong Catholics who have looked to the Church for definitive answers regarding Faith and Morals.
In some mysterious way, we must believe and hope that the Holy Spirit is at work. And because that is true, let us ask the Spirit to grant the Church the wisdom of patience and the gift of tranquility as we all seek to unite ourselves with the mercy and love of Christ Our Lord
The Cardinal writes: “The divorced and remarried, de facto couples, those cohabiting, are certainly not models of unions in sync with Catholic Doctrine, but the Church cannot look the other way. Therefore, the sacraments of Reconciliation and of Communion must be given even to those so-called wounded families and to however many who, despite living in situations not in line with traditional matrimonial canons, express the sincere desire to approach the sacraments after an appropriate period of discernment . . . Yes, therefore, to admission to the sacraments for those who, despite living in irregular situations, sincerely ask for admission into the fullness of ecclesial life, it is a gesture of openness and profound mercy on the part of Mother Church, who does not leave behind any of her children, aware that absolute perfection is a precious gift, but one which cannot be reached by everyone.”
I contend that the real import of the Cardinal’s book is not his particular analysis of AL which is very much in agreement with the interpretation of the Bishops of Malta and Germany, Argentina and a number of dioceses in the United States. Rather, the importance of this analysis is the fact that some of the most influential members of the College of Cardinals so radically disagree among themselves about AL and have made those disagreements public.
Let’s remember that, just a few weeks ago, Cardinal Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an interview in which he resolutely upheld the traditional practice of withholding Penance and Holy Communion from divorced-and-remarried Catholics.
And so, the Church’s arguably two highest-ranking cardinals in the areas of canonical interpretation and the protection of doctrine and morals are in public, plain, and diametric opposition with each other concerning a crucial canonical and Sacramental practice.
Where does this leave us then?
In the course of studying for my degree in Canon Law, my professors often reminded all their students of the fundamental principle doubtful laws do not bind.
Given the contradictory interpretations of AL, can one not reasonably hold that the Church’s discipline regarding the admission of divorced and sexually active remarried couples to Penance and Holy Communion is now in doubt?
And how are Catholics (and I include Pastors of souls in that designation) to resolve any doubts they may have regarding the implications of Amoris Laetitia? Who are they to listen to? Which interpretation is correct and therefore binding?
At this stage of the argument, I cannot answer that question with any degree of moral or legal certainty.
And so, Catholics are left to make up their own minds about how Church teaching and practice applies to them.
Perhaps, that is both the real intention and real consequence which the Holy Father and the Synod had in mind in the first place, to leave the matter to the judgment of real people in real life situations.
It certainly is a “brave new world” for many of us in the Priesthood. It is an alternate universe for lifelong Catholics who have looked to the Church for definitive answers regarding Faith and Morals.
In some mysterious way, we must believe and hope that the Holy Spirit is at work. And because that is true, let us ask the Spirit to grant the Church the wisdom of patience and the gift of tranquility as we all seek to unite ourselves with the mercy and love of Christ Our Lord
POPE FRANCIS' CONFUSING INCONSISTENCIES
Recently, Pope Francis met with the editorial staff of Civilta Cattolica, to celebrate the publication of the 4,000th issue of the Jesuit journal.
Civilta Cattolica has long been regarded as a semi-official Vatican publication, because its contents are approved in advance by the Holy See. The journal has gained added influence under Pope Francis, with its editor, Father Antonio Spadaro, serving as one of the Pope’s closest advisers.
The Pope alluded to this relationship, saying that the tie to the Roman Pontiff “has always been an essential feature of your journal.” He then made an apparent reference to current controversies in the Church:
"You are in the barque of St. Peter. At times in history – today as before – it may be buffeted by the waves, and we should not be surprised by this. But even the very sailors called to row in the barque of Peter can row in the opposite direction. It has always happened."
The current issue of Civilta Cattolica features an essay by the deputy editor, Father Giancarlo Pani, in which he questions about the teaching of St. John Paul II that women can never be ordained to the priesthood.
Although the essay does not directly advance the argument that women could be ordained, the author questions whether the statement by St. John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an authoritative and binding statement of the Church magisterium. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) answered that question in 1995, stating plainly that the papal teaching was definitive and should be “considered as belonging to the deposit of the faith.” Nevertheless Father Pani reopens that question.
Citing “tensions” between the Church’s teaching and the work of theologians, the author says that the 1995 statement from the CDF “does not take into account the developments that the presence of woman in the family and in society has undergone in the 21st century.” He says that there is “unease among those who fail to understand how the exclusion of woman from the Church’s ministry can coexist with the affirmation and appreciation of her equal dignity.”
“One cannot always resort to the past,” the article argues, calling for a new approach to the issue. Father Pani closes with the observation that Pope Francis has shown that he will not “limit himself to what is already known.”
Pope Francis himself has said that the teaching of St. John Paul II on the impossibility of ordaining women is “the last clear word... and this holds.”
I have previously written that Pope Francis, God love him, often confuses me about so many things he says and does.
Here once again, the Holy Father praises the editorial staff of a Jesuit journal which publishes an essay which clearly opens for further didebate a Catholic doctrine and practice which Francis himself has already pronounced the final word on the subject.
I find the inconsistencies in this Pope confusing indeed. Still, I wonder if this is not the working of the Holy Spirit in some mysterious way nudging the institutional Church toward the future in a series of halting steps.
So, I will do what I always do when I find myself in these perplexing situations, that is, praying to the Holy Spirit to guide the Church, to inspire our Holy Father and all the Bishops, and to encourage all of us to embrace, guard and protect our Catholic Faith, truly the greatest treasure in our lives.
Civilta Cattolica has long been regarded as a semi-official Vatican publication, because its contents are approved in advance by the Holy See. The journal has gained added influence under Pope Francis, with its editor, Father Antonio Spadaro, serving as one of the Pope’s closest advisers.
The Pope alluded to this relationship, saying that the tie to the Roman Pontiff “has always been an essential feature of your journal.” He then made an apparent reference to current controversies in the Church:
"You are in the barque of St. Peter. At times in history – today as before – it may be buffeted by the waves, and we should not be surprised by this. But even the very sailors called to row in the barque of Peter can row in the opposite direction. It has always happened."
The current issue of Civilta Cattolica features an essay by the deputy editor, Father Giancarlo Pani, in which he questions about the teaching of St. John Paul II that women can never be ordained to the priesthood.
Although the essay does not directly advance the argument that women could be ordained, the author questions whether the statement by St. John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is an authoritative and binding statement of the Church magisterium. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) answered that question in 1995, stating plainly that the papal teaching was definitive and should be “considered as belonging to the deposit of the faith.” Nevertheless Father Pani reopens that question.
Citing “tensions” between the Church’s teaching and the work of theologians, the author says that the 1995 statement from the CDF “does not take into account the developments that the presence of woman in the family and in society has undergone in the 21st century.” He says that there is “unease among those who fail to understand how the exclusion of woman from the Church’s ministry can coexist with the affirmation and appreciation of her equal dignity.”
“One cannot always resort to the past,” the article argues, calling for a new approach to the issue. Father Pani closes with the observation that Pope Francis has shown that he will not “limit himself to what is already known.”
Pope Francis himself has said that the teaching of St. John Paul II on the impossibility of ordaining women is “the last clear word... and this holds.”
I have previously written that Pope Francis, God love him, often confuses me about so many things he says and does.
Here once again, the Holy Father praises the editorial staff of a Jesuit journal which publishes an essay which clearly opens for further didebate a Catholic doctrine and practice which Francis himself has already pronounced the final word on the subject.
I find the inconsistencies in this Pope confusing indeed. Still, I wonder if this is not the working of the Holy Spirit in some mysterious way nudging the institutional Church toward the future in a series of halting steps.
So, I will do what I always do when I find myself in these perplexing situations, that is, praying to the Holy Spirit to guide the Church, to inspire our Holy Father and all the Bishops, and to encourage all of us to embrace, guard and protect our Catholic Faith, truly the greatest treasure in our lives.
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
WHAT THE CHURCH REALLY TEACHES ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY
On January 15 of this year, the State of Virginia executed Ricky Gray by lethal injection.
In 2006, Gray and his nephew murdered seven people over a period of six days. Gray was convicted of killing a family of four who left their front door open on New Year’s Day 2006. The family had been beaten, bound, and repeatedly stabbed. Their house was then set on fire.
Gray received the death sentence for the murders of 9-year-old Stella Harvey and her 4-year-old sister Ruby. He was also sentenced to life in prison for killing their parents.
Gray also confessed to the November 2005 killing of his own wife.
Gray’s nephew, Ray Dandridge, is serving a life sentence due murders unrelated to the Harvey family.
In the weeks before his execution, Ricky Gray publicly apologized stating, “I’m sorry they had to be a victim of my despair. “Remorse is not a deep enough word for how I feel. I know my words can't bring anything back, but I continuously feel horrible for the circumstances that I put them through. I robbed them from a lifelong supply of joy,” he said in an audio message posted on a website advocating his clemency.
Following Gray's execution, Catholic Bishop Francis DiLorenzo of Richmond and Bishop Michael F. Burbidge of Arlington said in a joint statement that that the death penalty should be abandoned because the state can protect itself in other ways.
Bishop DiLorenzo and Bishop Burbridge do not represent the official teaching of the Church whose Magisterium does not and never has advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty.
Even the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who curiously advance the abolishment of the death penalty, acknowledge the moral right of the state take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime.
In fact, the right of the state to inflict the death penalty has been the consistent teaching of the Church founded upon the Scriptures as well as the teachings of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent and modern Popes as well.
St. Paul in his hearing before Festus says, “If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death.” (Acts 25:11) Very clearly, St. Paul acknowledges that the state continues to have the power of life and death in the administration of justice.
Moreover, it should not be forgotten that when the Scriptures first introduce St. Paul (Saul at that point in his life), he is advocating and affirming the stoning to death of St. Stephen for the crime of blasphemy.
St. Augustine had to say on this topic: “ . . . there are some exceptions made by the divine authority to its own law, that men may not be put to death. These exceptions are of two kinds, being justified either by a general law, or by a special commission granted for a time to some individual. And in this latter case, he to whom authority is delegated, and who is but the sword in the hand of him who uses it, is not himself responsible for the death he deals. And, accordingly, they who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, You shall not kill.” (City of God, Bk I, 21)
Augustine adds that capital punishment protects those who are undergoing it from further sinning, which might continue if their life went on.
Citing Exodus 22, which specifies that certain categories of wrongdoers shall not be permitted to live, St. Thomas Aquinas, for his part, unequivocally states that civil rulers can execute justly to protect the peace of the state. St. Thomas finds frivolous the argument that murderers should be allowed to live in hopes of their repentance, questioning how many innocent people should have to suffer death while waiting for the guilty to repent.
While capital punishment is not justifiable as an act of vengeance according to Aquinas, it is justifiable to help secure the safety of the community by removing a dangerous wrongdoer and deterring others from his example; in addition, it is an act of justice, allowing expiation for the wrongdoer’s sin.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, composed under the supervision of St. Charles Borromeo, teaches: “Far from being guilty of breaking the commandment against unjust killing, such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.”
Pope Pius XII stated, “In the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.”
Even Pope St. John Paul II, perhaps the most vocal opponent of the death penalty, affirmed the right of the state to execute persons guilty of serious crime but to exercise an abundance of care in doing so, seeking instead to punish criminals by other severe penalties when feasible and possible.
Certainly, the unequivocal calls of such leaders like Bishop Francis DiLorenzo and Bishop Michael F. Burbidge give the false impression that, to be in union with Church teaching, a person must unequivocally oppose the death penalty.
The Bishops know that such is not the case and should be more circumspect and responsible in avoiding such misconceptions.
It must be noted that almost a decade passed from the time that Ricky Gray committed his heinous crimes until his execution. During that period, he was afforded every due process of law as well as many pleas for clemency. His execution was not an act of vengeance but the administration of justice. Catholics in good faith have a right to hold to that belief and should not be coerced into thinking otherwise.
Even so, those of us who continue to uphold the imposition of the death penalty as the moral right of the state, ask the Lord’s mercy upon the innocent victims and those who mourn them. Moreover, even as the death penalty is rightly imposed Ricky Gray who unjustly and violently destroyed their lives, we ask that the Lord to have mercy upon his soul.
Such is right and fitting and just both in the eyes of men and in the eyes of God Himself.
In 2006, Gray and his nephew murdered seven people over a period of six days. Gray was convicted of killing a family of four who left their front door open on New Year’s Day 2006. The family had been beaten, bound, and repeatedly stabbed. Their house was then set on fire.
Gray received the death sentence for the murders of 9-year-old Stella Harvey and her 4-year-old sister Ruby. He was also sentenced to life in prison for killing their parents.
Gray also confessed to the November 2005 killing of his own wife.
Gray’s nephew, Ray Dandridge, is serving a life sentence due murders unrelated to the Harvey family.
In the weeks before his execution, Ricky Gray publicly apologized stating, “I’m sorry they had to be a victim of my despair. “Remorse is not a deep enough word for how I feel. I know my words can't bring anything back, but I continuously feel horrible for the circumstances that I put them through. I robbed them from a lifelong supply of joy,” he said in an audio message posted on a website advocating his clemency.
Following Gray's execution, Catholic Bishop Francis DiLorenzo of Richmond and Bishop Michael F. Burbidge of Arlington said in a joint statement that that the death penalty should be abandoned because the state can protect itself in other ways.
Bishop DiLorenzo and Bishop Burbridge do not represent the official teaching of the Church whose Magisterium does not and never has advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty.
Even the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who curiously advance the abolishment of the death penalty, acknowledge the moral right of the state take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime.
In fact, the right of the state to inflict the death penalty has been the consistent teaching of the Church founded upon the Scriptures as well as the teachings of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Council of Trent and modern Popes as well.
St. Paul in his hearing before Festus says, “If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death.” (Acts 25:11) Very clearly, St. Paul acknowledges that the state continues to have the power of life and death in the administration of justice.
Moreover, it should not be forgotten that when the Scriptures first introduce St. Paul (Saul at that point in his life), he is advocating and affirming the stoning to death of St. Stephen for the crime of blasphemy.
St. Augustine had to say on this topic: “ . . . there are some exceptions made by the divine authority to its own law, that men may not be put to death. These exceptions are of two kinds, being justified either by a general law, or by a special commission granted for a time to some individual. And in this latter case, he to whom authority is delegated, and who is but the sword in the hand of him who uses it, is not himself responsible for the death he deals. And, accordingly, they who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, You shall not kill.” (City of God, Bk I, 21)
Augustine adds that capital punishment protects those who are undergoing it from further sinning, which might continue if their life went on.
Citing Exodus 22, which specifies that certain categories of wrongdoers shall not be permitted to live, St. Thomas Aquinas, for his part, unequivocally states that civil rulers can execute justly to protect the peace of the state. St. Thomas finds frivolous the argument that murderers should be allowed to live in hopes of their repentance, questioning how many innocent people should have to suffer death while waiting for the guilty to repent.
While capital punishment is not justifiable as an act of vengeance according to Aquinas, it is justifiable to help secure the safety of the community by removing a dangerous wrongdoer and deterring others from his example; in addition, it is an act of justice, allowing expiation for the wrongdoer’s sin.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, composed under the supervision of St. Charles Borromeo, teaches: “Far from being guilty of breaking the commandment against unjust killing, such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.”
Pope Pius XII stated, “In the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.”
Even Pope St. John Paul II, perhaps the most vocal opponent of the death penalty, affirmed the right of the state to execute persons guilty of serious crime but to exercise an abundance of care in doing so, seeking instead to punish criminals by other severe penalties when feasible and possible.
Certainly, the unequivocal calls of such leaders like Bishop Francis DiLorenzo and Bishop Michael F. Burbidge give the false impression that, to be in union with Church teaching, a person must unequivocally oppose the death penalty.
The Bishops know that such is not the case and should be more circumspect and responsible in avoiding such misconceptions.
It must be noted that almost a decade passed from the time that Ricky Gray committed his heinous crimes until his execution. During that period, he was afforded every due process of law as well as many pleas for clemency. His execution was not an act of vengeance but the administration of justice. Catholics in good faith have a right to hold to that belief and should not be coerced into thinking otherwise.
Even so, those of us who continue to uphold the imposition of the death penalty as the moral right of the state, ask the Lord’s mercy upon the innocent victims and those who mourn them. Moreover, even as the death penalty is rightly imposed Ricky Gray who unjustly and violently destroyed their lives, we ask that the Lord to have mercy upon his soul.
Such is right and fitting and just both in the eyes of men and in the eyes of God Himself.
Monday, February 13, 2017
DREAMING ABOUT WOMEN IN THE PRIESTHOOD
Anyone who has read my posts for any length of time knows my enthusiasm and affection for Pope Francis. Perhaps as no other Pope in my lifetime has a Pontiff embraced and sought to incorporate the teachings of Vatican Council II into the practical experience of the Church.
He does confuse me, however. But, as friends have suggested to me often, I am easily confused about so many things.
Here’s a tidbit from the Pope’s daily morning Mass at Casa Santa Marta, as he reflected on the creation of woman, as told in Genesis, and on how God created woman, in his personal opinion, so that we would all have a mother.
“Without women, there is no harmony in the world, ” the Pope stressed, noting men and women are not equal. While clarifying that one is not superior to the other, he explained that it is the woman, and not the man, who brings that harmony which makes the world a beautiful place.
During the homily, the Pope considered three moments in Creation: the solitude of the man, the dream, and the destiny of both the man and the woman: to be “one flesh.”
Pope Francis was continuing his reflections on creation, and how God, seeing man all alone, took a rib from Adam and created woman, who the man recognized as “flesh of his flesh.” “But before seeing her,” the Pope said, “the man dreamed of her… In order to understand a woman, it is necessary first to dream of her.” The woman brings, Francis stressed, bring the capacity to love one another, namely harmony for the world.
“This is the great gift of God: He has given us woman. And in the Gospel, we have heard what a woman is capable of, eh? She is courageous, that one, eh? She went forward with courage. But there is more, so much more. A woman is harmony, is poetry, is beauty.
Without her, the world would not be so beautiful, it would not be harmonious. “And I like to think – but this is a personal thing – that God created women so that we would all have a mother.
The Pope went on to lament how often, women are spoken about or thought of in a ‘functionalist’ manner. Instead, he underscored, we should see women as bearers of a richness that men do not possess: women bring harmony to creation.
“When women are not there, harmony is missing. We might say: But this is a society with a strong masculine attitude, and this is the case, no? The woman is missing. ‘Yes, yes: the woman is there to wash the dishes, to do things…’ “No, no, no!” he said, “The woman is there to bring harmony,” and who “teaches us to caress, to love with tenderness; and who makes the world a beautiful place.”
I cannot ever remember a Pope speaking of women so beautifully, so passionately!
What confuses me, however, is this: if women were created to bring harmony into creation, why deprive the Church of that harmony?
If woman truly is flesh of man’s flesh, what ontological obstacle exists which would render women incapable of Priesthood? If woman is truly man’s equal, “in persona Christi” must equally apply to a woman’s capacity to act in ontological unity with the Lord, must it not?
The irony for the Church is this: the Church does not wish to speak of women in a “functionalist” manner, but does precisely that when denying even the metaphysical possibility of a woman (flesh of man’s flesh) acting “in persona Christi”.
There are many problems facing the Church.
Pope Francis jokingly said in a recent interview that he places problems he encounters in letters he writes to Saint Joseph, letters which he places under a statue of the Saint by his bedside. Francis said: “I sleep on a mattress of such letters!”
I wonder whether or not a number of the problems facing the Church come from the lack of harmony within the Body of Christ precisely because the People of God are not the beneficiaries of the tenderness and gentle spiritual caress that only women can offer by sharing in the Priesthood of Jesus Christ.
I offer this thought not as an agenda item for a revolutionary change in the Church, but offer it simply as a question occasioned by the Pope’s homily and my understanding of the metaphysical and ontological arguments that have been made against women being ordained.
Might not the Church do well to at least be willing to "dream" of women as Priests?
I guess instead of writing posts about the subject, I should just jot off a letter to Saint Joseph myself and putting it under my pillow.
If I did the same for all the things which confused me about the Church, I’d be in the same position as Pope Francis.
Problem is I don’t sleep well on paper. Apparently, the Holy Father does!
He does confuse me, however. But, as friends have suggested to me often, I am easily confused about so many things.
Here’s a tidbit from the Pope’s daily morning Mass at Casa Santa Marta, as he reflected on the creation of woman, as told in Genesis, and on how God created woman, in his personal opinion, so that we would all have a mother.
“Without women, there is no harmony in the world, ” the Pope stressed, noting men and women are not equal. While clarifying that one is not superior to the other, he explained that it is the woman, and not the man, who brings that harmony which makes the world a beautiful place.
During the homily, the Pope considered three moments in Creation: the solitude of the man, the dream, and the destiny of both the man and the woman: to be “one flesh.”
Pope Francis was continuing his reflections on creation, and how God, seeing man all alone, took a rib from Adam and created woman, who the man recognized as “flesh of his flesh.” “But before seeing her,” the Pope said, “the man dreamed of her… In order to understand a woman, it is necessary first to dream of her.” The woman brings, Francis stressed, bring the capacity to love one another, namely harmony for the world.
“This is the great gift of God: He has given us woman. And in the Gospel, we have heard what a woman is capable of, eh? She is courageous, that one, eh? She went forward with courage. But there is more, so much more. A woman is harmony, is poetry, is beauty.
Without her, the world would not be so beautiful, it would not be harmonious. “And I like to think – but this is a personal thing – that God created women so that we would all have a mother.
The Pope went on to lament how often, women are spoken about or thought of in a ‘functionalist’ manner. Instead, he underscored, we should see women as bearers of a richness that men do not possess: women bring harmony to creation.
“When women are not there, harmony is missing. We might say: But this is a society with a strong masculine attitude, and this is the case, no? The woman is missing. ‘Yes, yes: the woman is there to wash the dishes, to do things…’ “No, no, no!” he said, “The woman is there to bring harmony,” and who “teaches us to caress, to love with tenderness; and who makes the world a beautiful place.”
I cannot ever remember a Pope speaking of women so beautifully, so passionately!
What confuses me, however, is this: if women were created to bring harmony into creation, why deprive the Church of that harmony?
If woman truly is flesh of man’s flesh, what ontological obstacle exists which would render women incapable of Priesthood? If woman is truly man’s equal, “in persona Christi” must equally apply to a woman’s capacity to act in ontological unity with the Lord, must it not?
The irony for the Church is this: the Church does not wish to speak of women in a “functionalist” manner, but does precisely that when denying even the metaphysical possibility of a woman (flesh of man’s flesh) acting “in persona Christi”.
There are many problems facing the Church.
Pope Francis jokingly said in a recent interview that he places problems he encounters in letters he writes to Saint Joseph, letters which he places under a statue of the Saint by his bedside. Francis said: “I sleep on a mattress of such letters!”
I wonder whether or not a number of the problems facing the Church come from the lack of harmony within the Body of Christ precisely because the People of God are not the beneficiaries of the tenderness and gentle spiritual caress that only women can offer by sharing in the Priesthood of Jesus Christ.
I offer this thought not as an agenda item for a revolutionary change in the Church, but offer it simply as a question occasioned by the Pope’s homily and my understanding of the metaphysical and ontological arguments that have been made against women being ordained.
Might not the Church do well to at least be willing to "dream" of women as Priests?
I guess instead of writing posts about the subject, I should just jot off a letter to Saint Joseph myself and putting it under my pillow.
If I did the same for all the things which confused me about the Church, I’d be in the same position as Pope Francis.
Problem is I don’t sleep well on paper. Apparently, the Holy Father does!
Sunday, February 12, 2017
THE CHURCH'S COWARDLY RESPONSE TO THE BOY SCOUTS
The Boy Scouts of America's new policy to accept members based on their gender identity will have no impact on Scouting units sponsored by the Catholic Church, said the National Catholic Committee on Scouting.
On January 30th, the Boy Scouts announced that effective immediately, the Texas-based organization will determine membership eligibility for Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts on a youth's gender identity as indicated on the membership application. Previously, the policy based eligibility on the gender indicated on a youth's birth certificate.
On February 4th, the National Catholic Committee on Scouting stated that the change in policy "has no impact on the operation and program delivery of Scouting program(s) in Catholic-chartered units."
"Scouting serves the Catholic Church through the charter concept, which is similar to a franchise," it said. "The units chartered to a Catholic institution are owned by that organization. The BSA has stipulated that religious partners will continue to have the right to make decisions for their units based on their religious beliefs."
The statement was signed by George S. Sparks, national chairman of the National Catholic Committee on Scouting, and Father Kevin M. Smith, a priest of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, N.Y., who is national chaplain of Catholic Scouting. The statement was approved by Bishop Robert E. Guglielmone of Charleston, S.C., who is the episcopal liaison between Catholic Scouting and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Sparks and Father Smith said in their statement: "Scouting's chartered organizations have the right to uphold their own moral standards within the units they charter. The teachings of the Catholic Church are upheld."
I deplore the mealy-mouthed and cowardly responses of the National Catholic Committee on Scouting and the national chaplain.
It appears the moral principle underlying their statement is this: since the policy doesn’t affect Catholic-chartered scouting groups, then we have nothing to say one way or the other about the moral implications of such decisions.
Why is it that when the Church has the ability to really make its impact felt upon such sexually deviant policy as this one as well as the ability of homosexuals to exercise leadership roles in the scouting program that it shirks the opportunity?
The fact is about 70 % of Boy Scout troops are run by faith-based groups.
What a horrible example the Church and other faith-based groups set by not withdrawing their affiliation and support from the Boy Scouts, thus crippling the organization and the continuing misguided direction it has chosen to take in recent years.
The Archdiocese of Saint Louis issued a statement indicating that the local Church was “distressed” by this decision. How pitiful!
The Archdiocese and the Bishops of the United States need to be more than distressed.
They need to be outraged and express that outrage in the unanimous decision to disassociate from the Boy Scouts. What a clear statement about the idiocy of gender identity agendas that would make!
Sadly, our Catholic hierarchy and leadership is so weak and compromised that they remain silent.
Hopefully, parents of impressionable boys will make the decent and rational decision to withdraw their children from scouting and seek to enroll them in other formation programs which truly reflect Gospel values, if there are any still left to be found anywhere in the land.
On January 30th, the Boy Scouts announced that effective immediately, the Texas-based organization will determine membership eligibility for Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts on a youth's gender identity as indicated on the membership application. Previously, the policy based eligibility on the gender indicated on a youth's birth certificate.
On February 4th, the National Catholic Committee on Scouting stated that the change in policy "has no impact on the operation and program delivery of Scouting program(s) in Catholic-chartered units."
"Scouting serves the Catholic Church through the charter concept, which is similar to a franchise," it said. "The units chartered to a Catholic institution are owned by that organization. The BSA has stipulated that religious partners will continue to have the right to make decisions for their units based on their religious beliefs."
The statement was signed by George S. Sparks, national chairman of the National Catholic Committee on Scouting, and Father Kevin M. Smith, a priest of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, N.Y., who is national chaplain of Catholic Scouting. The statement was approved by Bishop Robert E. Guglielmone of Charleston, S.C., who is the episcopal liaison between Catholic Scouting and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Sparks and Father Smith said in their statement: "Scouting's chartered organizations have the right to uphold their own moral standards within the units they charter. The teachings of the Catholic Church are upheld."
I deplore the mealy-mouthed and cowardly responses of the National Catholic Committee on Scouting and the national chaplain.
It appears the moral principle underlying their statement is this: since the policy doesn’t affect Catholic-chartered scouting groups, then we have nothing to say one way or the other about the moral implications of such decisions.
Why is it that when the Church has the ability to really make its impact felt upon such sexually deviant policy as this one as well as the ability of homosexuals to exercise leadership roles in the scouting program that it shirks the opportunity?
The fact is about 70 % of Boy Scout troops are run by faith-based groups.
What a horrible example the Church and other faith-based groups set by not withdrawing their affiliation and support from the Boy Scouts, thus crippling the organization and the continuing misguided direction it has chosen to take in recent years.
The Archdiocese of Saint Louis issued a statement indicating that the local Church was “distressed” by this decision. How pitiful!
The Archdiocese and the Bishops of the United States need to be more than distressed.
They need to be outraged and express that outrage in the unanimous decision to disassociate from the Boy Scouts. What a clear statement about the idiocy of gender identity agendas that would make!
Sadly, our Catholic hierarchy and leadership is so weak and compromised that they remain silent.
Hopefully, parents of impressionable boys will make the decent and rational decision to withdraw their children from scouting and seek to enroll them in other formation programs which truly reflect Gospel values, if there are any still left to be found anywhere in the land.
USCCB IGNORES CATECHISM TEACHING REGARDING IMMIGRATION
In the wake of President Trump’s Executive Order temporarily banning immigrants and refugees who cannot be properly vetted at the present time, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops( USCCB) released a statement expressing their solidarity with Muslims and voicing their deep concern over religious liberty issues. The statement – which is co-signed by Bishop Mitchell Rozanski (Chair, USCCB Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs), Bishop William Lori (Chair, Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty), and Bishop Oscar Cantú (Chair, Committee on International Justice and Peace) – expresses regret that the Executive Order should have generated fear and anxiety among refugees, immigrants and others, and says:
“...we join with other faith leaders to stand in solidarity again with those affected by this order, especially our Muslim sisters and brothers. We also express our firm resolution that the Order's stated preference for "religious minorities" should be applied to protect not only Christians where they are a minority, but all religious minorities who suffer persecution, which includes Yazidis, Shia Muslims in majority Sunni areas, and vice versa.
While we also recognize that the United States government has a duty to protect the security of its people, we must nevertheless employ means that respect both religious liberty for all, and the urgency of protecting the lives of those who desperately flee violence and persecution. It is our conviction as followers of the Lord Jesus that welcoming the stranger and protecting the vulnerable lie at the core of the Christian life. And so, to our Muslim brothers and sisters and all people of faith, we stand with you and welcome you.”
Once again, the USCCB has gotten it wrong by overstating the politics of the Executive Order rather than addressing its moral justification.
The Bishops, collectively represented by the USCCB, seem to be unaware of the teaching of the Church regarding the explicit duty of the state to protect its citizenry.
That teaching is specifically stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which speaks teaches the responsibility of government to protect its citizens, even while welcoming the stranger.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him." (Paragraph 2241)
So a nation is not required to accept an unlimited number of immigrants, which would impose a burden on its own citizens – but we should be generous in accepting immigrants to the extent that we are able. And the decision regarding how many immigrants a nation can support should fall belongs to duly elected public authorities, not the Bishops.
The Catechism continues: " Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption."
Clearly, then, it is not wrong, according to the Catechism, for a President or the Congress to impose restrictions in order to ensure the safety and well-being of the American people.
Finally, the Catechism teaches that immigrants are only to be welcomed if they are willing to obey our laws. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
The Bishops simply cannot justify their statement in reaction to the President’s Executive Order. The very Catechsism of the Catholic Church refutes any of their arguments.
The Bishops need to realize that, in matters of Faith and Morals, they have become increasingly irrelevant voices to the Catholic Faithful. Why do they suppose that their meddling in politics will have any particular effect or import?
“...we join with other faith leaders to stand in solidarity again with those affected by this order, especially our Muslim sisters and brothers. We also express our firm resolution that the Order's stated preference for "religious minorities" should be applied to protect not only Christians where they are a minority, but all religious minorities who suffer persecution, which includes Yazidis, Shia Muslims in majority Sunni areas, and vice versa.
While we also recognize that the United States government has a duty to protect the security of its people, we must nevertheless employ means that respect both religious liberty for all, and the urgency of protecting the lives of those who desperately flee violence and persecution. It is our conviction as followers of the Lord Jesus that welcoming the stranger and protecting the vulnerable lie at the core of the Christian life. And so, to our Muslim brothers and sisters and all people of faith, we stand with you and welcome you.”
Once again, the USCCB has gotten it wrong by overstating the politics of the Executive Order rather than addressing its moral justification.
The Bishops, collectively represented by the USCCB, seem to be unaware of the teaching of the Church regarding the explicit duty of the state to protect its citizenry.
That teaching is specifically stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which speaks teaches the responsibility of government to protect its citizens, even while welcoming the stranger.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him." (Paragraph 2241)
So a nation is not required to accept an unlimited number of immigrants, which would impose a burden on its own citizens – but we should be generous in accepting immigrants to the extent that we are able. And the decision regarding how many immigrants a nation can support should fall belongs to duly elected public authorities, not the Bishops.
The Catechism continues: " Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption."
Clearly, then, it is not wrong, according to the Catechism, for a President or the Congress to impose restrictions in order to ensure the safety and well-being of the American people.
Finally, the Catechism teaches that immigrants are only to be welcomed if they are willing to obey our laws. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
The Bishops simply cannot justify their statement in reaction to the President’s Executive Order. The very Catechsism of the Catholic Church refutes any of their arguments.
The Bishops need to realize that, in matters of Faith and Morals, they have become increasingly irrelevant voices to the Catholic Faithful. Why do they suppose that their meddling in politics will have any particular effect or import?
Friday, February 10, 2017
LET JUSTICE BE DONE
A brief of evidence made against Cardinal George Pell regarding sexual assault allegations has been returned to prosecutors for review. Victoria Police confirmed on Monday that a brief of evidence against Cardinal Pell had been returned to the Office of Public Prosecutions.
The development in the case against the Cardinal comes after detectives flew to Rome to interview him in October.
There is no suggestion Cardinal Pell is guilty of the allegations, only that they are being investigated. Police are investigating multiple sexual assault allegations against Cardinal Pell, said to have occurred in Ballarat East between 1976 and 1980, and East Melbourne between 1996 and 2001.
Three detectives traveled to Rome in October to meet with Cardinal Pell, who voluntarily participated in an interview.
The Cardinal, who is in charge of the Vatican's finances, has vehemently denied the allegations, describing the claims as "without foundation and utterly false".
The development in the police investigation comes after the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse released world-first data on Monday showing almost 4500 people made allegations of child sexual abuse to church authorities over 35 years.
I sincerely pray and hope that the investigation into these allegations is both thorough and swift. Cardinal Pell deserves to be exonerated of such allegations if they are false. The Catholic community deserves to know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that His Eminence is guilty of such horrific allegations or, as we anticipate, is completely innocent of such charges.
Justice delayed is justice denied, as the adage advises. Let justice be done to Cardinal Pell as well as to all those who suffered such despicable abuse from Priests and Religious who have committed such unspeakable crimes.
The development in the case against the Cardinal comes after detectives flew to Rome to interview him in October.
There is no suggestion Cardinal Pell is guilty of the allegations, only that they are being investigated. Police are investigating multiple sexual assault allegations against Cardinal Pell, said to have occurred in Ballarat East between 1976 and 1980, and East Melbourne between 1996 and 2001.
Three detectives traveled to Rome in October to meet with Cardinal Pell, who voluntarily participated in an interview.
The Cardinal, who is in charge of the Vatican's finances, has vehemently denied the allegations, describing the claims as "without foundation and utterly false".
The development in the police investigation comes after the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse released world-first data on Monday showing almost 4500 people made allegations of child sexual abuse to church authorities over 35 years.
I sincerely pray and hope that the investigation into these allegations is both thorough and swift. Cardinal Pell deserves to be exonerated of such allegations if they are false. The Catholic community deserves to know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that His Eminence is guilty of such horrific allegations or, as we anticipate, is completely innocent of such charges.
Justice delayed is justice denied, as the adage advises. Let justice be done to Cardinal Pell as well as to all those who suffered such despicable abuse from Priests and Religious who have committed such unspeakable crimes.
SEXUAL ABUSE SCANDAL IN AUSTRALIA
In Australia, the Royal Commission established to investigate the institutional responses to sexual abuse of minors by Priests and Religious Orders recently reported on the scale of the crisis within the Catholic Church.
Approximately 7% of Australia’s Catholic Priests were accused of the sexual molestation of minors over a period of the last six decades. The numbers confirm the extent of sexual predation already suggested by four years of Royal Commission hearings involving the Church, which are now entering their final weeks.
In some dioceses, almost 15% of resident Priests were alleged abusers, with the numbers being most prevalent in the Dioceses of Sale and Sandhurst in Victoria, Port Pirie in South Australia, and Lismore and Wollongong in New South Wales.
The numbers were even worse in some national Catholic Orders. By far the worst was the Order of the St John of God Brothers, where a staggering 40% of Religious Brothers have been accused of sexual molestation of minors.
Approximately 22 % of Christian Brothers and 20% of Marist Brothers, both orders that run schools, were alleged perpetrators. More 20% of the Priests in the Benedictine community of New Norcia were alleged perpetrators, while 17.2% of clergy were accused of crimes against children among the members of the Salesian Order.
In total, between 1980 and 2015, 4,444 people alleged incidents of sexual abuse relating to 93 Catholic Church authorities. The abuse allegedly took place in more than 1,000 institutions.
The average age of victims was 10.5 for girls and 11.6 for boys. The overwhelming majority of survivors were male. Almost 1,900 perpetrators were identified and another 500 remained unidentified. Over 32% were Religious Brothers, 30% were Priests, 29% were Lay People and 5% were Religious Sisters.
Perhaps what is even more disturbing is the response of the Holy See to repeated requests made of the Vatican in the hope of gaining an understanding of the actions taken in each case. The Commission reported: “The Holy See responded, on 1 July 2014, that it was ‘neither possible nor appropriate to provide the information requested.”
Moreover, the Commission reported that responses of Catholic Diocese and Religious Orders across the country were “depressingly similar”.
The Commission further charges that: “Children were ignored or worse, punished. Allegations were not investigated. Priests and religious [brothers] were moved. The parishes or communities to which they were moved knew nothing of their past, Documents were not kept or they were destroyed. Secrecy prevailed as did cover-ups.”
The Church’s Truth, Justice and Healing Council, set up to coordinate the Church’s response to the crisis, made an opening statement following the release of the data.
Chief executive Francis Sullivan struggled with emotion as he spoke, saying the data without doubt “undermines the image and credibility of the Priesthood”. “These numbers are shocking, they are tragic, they are indefensible,” Sullivan said. “And each entry in this data for the most part represents a child who suffered at the hands of someone who should have cared for and protected them.
The Royal Commission is now in its final stage of examining abuse by Catholic clergy and the responses of various Catholic authorities. The final three weeks are expected to focus on cultural causes of the offending, the current child protection policies of the church, and the way it has responded to the royal commission case studies so far. The Archbishops of Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne Canberra-Goulburn, Perth and Brisbane are due to give evidence.
Church leaders last week began warning churchgoers and schools about the final weeks of the royal commission.
The Archbishop of Brisbane, Mark Coleridge, released a video to Catholic school parents and churches warning them to expect some “grim moments”. He said the final hearing would allow the church to tell a “better story” about how it has changed.
“Through these three weeks there will be some grim moments and there will be some shocks, inevitably,” he said. “But there will also be a chance to tell a better story of what has been done and what is being done now.”
He said the church would need to show how it had changed culturally, as well as through amendments to flawed child protection policies and procedures. “It’s not enough to change procedures and protocols, that has to happen. But we have to shift the culture and that’s a much more difficult thing to do,” he said.
Approximately 7% of Australia’s Catholic Priests were accused of the sexual molestation of minors over a period of the last six decades. The numbers confirm the extent of sexual predation already suggested by four years of Royal Commission hearings involving the Church, which are now entering their final weeks.
In some dioceses, almost 15% of resident Priests were alleged abusers, with the numbers being most prevalent in the Dioceses of Sale and Sandhurst in Victoria, Port Pirie in South Australia, and Lismore and Wollongong in New South Wales.
The numbers were even worse in some national Catholic Orders. By far the worst was the Order of the St John of God Brothers, where a staggering 40% of Religious Brothers have been accused of sexual molestation of minors.
Approximately 22 % of Christian Brothers and 20% of Marist Brothers, both orders that run schools, were alleged perpetrators. More 20% of the Priests in the Benedictine community of New Norcia were alleged perpetrators, while 17.2% of clergy were accused of crimes against children among the members of the Salesian Order.
In total, between 1980 and 2015, 4,444 people alleged incidents of sexual abuse relating to 93 Catholic Church authorities. The abuse allegedly took place in more than 1,000 institutions.
The average age of victims was 10.5 for girls and 11.6 for boys. The overwhelming majority of survivors were male. Almost 1,900 perpetrators were identified and another 500 remained unidentified. Over 32% were Religious Brothers, 30% were Priests, 29% were Lay People and 5% were Religious Sisters.
Perhaps what is even more disturbing is the response of the Holy See to repeated requests made of the Vatican in the hope of gaining an understanding of the actions taken in each case. The Commission reported: “The Holy See responded, on 1 July 2014, that it was ‘neither possible nor appropriate to provide the information requested.”
Moreover, the Commission reported that responses of Catholic Diocese and Religious Orders across the country were “depressingly similar”.
The Commission further charges that: “Children were ignored or worse, punished. Allegations were not investigated. Priests and religious [brothers] were moved. The parishes or communities to which they were moved knew nothing of their past, Documents were not kept or they were destroyed. Secrecy prevailed as did cover-ups.”
The Church’s Truth, Justice and Healing Council, set up to coordinate the Church’s response to the crisis, made an opening statement following the release of the data.
Chief executive Francis Sullivan struggled with emotion as he spoke, saying the data without doubt “undermines the image and credibility of the Priesthood”. “These numbers are shocking, they are tragic, they are indefensible,” Sullivan said. “And each entry in this data for the most part represents a child who suffered at the hands of someone who should have cared for and protected them.
The Royal Commission is now in its final stage of examining abuse by Catholic clergy and the responses of various Catholic authorities. The final three weeks are expected to focus on cultural causes of the offending, the current child protection policies of the church, and the way it has responded to the royal commission case studies so far. The Archbishops of Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne Canberra-Goulburn, Perth and Brisbane are due to give evidence.
Church leaders last week began warning churchgoers and schools about the final weeks of the royal commission.
The Archbishop of Brisbane, Mark Coleridge, released a video to Catholic school parents and churches warning them to expect some “grim moments”. He said the final hearing would allow the church to tell a “better story” about how it has changed.
“Through these three weeks there will be some grim moments and there will be some shocks, inevitably,” he said. “But there will also be a chance to tell a better story of what has been done and what is being done now.”
He said the church would need to show how it had changed culturally, as well as through amendments to flawed child protection policies and procedures. “It’s not enough to change procedures and protocols, that has to happen. But we have to shift the culture and that’s a much more difficult thing to do,” he said.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
THE LIE ABOUT PRIEST PEDOPHILES CONTINUES
As the sexual abuse scandal in Australia is garnering international attention, the Church hierarchy continues to exhibit a distinct discomfort addressing the issue of homosexuals in the Priesthood.
It is the same discomfort which, in spite of tough measures implemented after the sex abuse crisis, failed to look at the root cause of the abuse in the United States: homosexual Priests, and the gay-friendly Bishops who protect them.
In America, girls were only a fraction of the victims in the Church sex abuse scandal.
After the crisis revealed itself to be much bigger than Catholics ever knew, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2002 commissioned a study to examine the root causes of the abuse.
The National Review Board, recruiting a research team from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, released its initial report in 2004.
The results were conclusive: This was not a "pedophile" scandal, but a homosexual scandal.
Approximately, 80% of the alleged victims were male, and nearly 90 percent were post-pubescent, with "only a small percentage of Priests receiving allegations of abusing pre-adolescent children."
An updated report, issued in 2011, revealed similar numbers: 81% of sex abuse victims were boys, and 78 percent were post-pubescent.
Both findings put the lie to the oft-spoken claim that this was a "pedophile priest" scandal.
Pedophilia by definition involves children under age 11. The 2011 John Jay study showed the majority of abuse victims were adolescents and teens between ages 12 and 17 — a pathology more properly termed "ephebophilia."
Even Newsweek acknowledged the distinction in 2002: "The great majority of cases now before the Church involve not pedophilia but 'ephebophilia,' an attraction to post-pubescent youths."
The homosexual subculture has always involved sexual attraction to youths, and is a well-accepted part of the gay lifestyle. And evidence shows homosexuals abuse children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.
According to one study, "homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls."
This bears out: Although homosexuals comprise only 1–3 percent of the entire population, they are committing up to 33 percent of all sex crimes against children.
Notwithstanding this overwhelming evidence, Bishops remain timid in their denunciation of the homosexual lifestyle. Neither are they willing to take seriously the numbers of homosexual Priests actively engaged in pastoral ministry within their Dioceses.
And so, the lie continues that the sexual abuse scandal was the result of “pedophile” Priests who took advantage of pre-adolescent children.
In December of last year, the Congregation for Clergy released a document stating that "those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called 'gay culture'" are not to be admitted to seminaries or be ordained Catholic priests.
In a 90-page, highly-nuanced document titled The Gift of the Priestly Vocation, the Congregation for Clergy wrote that those who live the homosexual lifestyle, support the "gay culture," or have "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" "find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women."
"One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendences," the document continued.
Yet, the document took a rather confusing position stating: “If a candidate for the Priesthood experienced homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem like that of an adolesence not yet superseded, then such a case would be different."
Remarkably, the Congregation states: "such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before the ordination to the diaconate.”
Yet, such a statement is made in the complete and total absence of any clinical evidence to support an expectation that a homosexual tendency can be overcome in a period of three years. The statement is completely arbitrary and weakens the overall force of the document entirely.
Still, Pope Francis approved the Congregation’s statement.
It appears, then, that in accepting candidates for the Priesthood, the Church whimsically distinguishes degrees of homosexuality, considering some manifestations of the disorder to be a treatable malady, a transitory problem which an adolescent may encounter yet overcome on his road to maturity.
Such pyscho-babble does little to seriously address the crisis of homosexuality in the Priesthood and the havoc it continues to cause.
Let us be clear: the homosexual community continues to find a welcome place among the ranks of the Catholic Priesthood, gay-friendly Bishops continue to provide cover for them, and the Church continues to suffer the abuses and scandals they cause. Only when these realities change will the scandal of the sexual molestation of youngster entrusted to the care of homosexual Priests come to an end.
It is the same discomfort which, in spite of tough measures implemented after the sex abuse crisis, failed to look at the root cause of the abuse in the United States: homosexual Priests, and the gay-friendly Bishops who protect them.
In America, girls were only a fraction of the victims in the Church sex abuse scandal.
After the crisis revealed itself to be much bigger than Catholics ever knew, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2002 commissioned a study to examine the root causes of the abuse.
The National Review Board, recruiting a research team from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, released its initial report in 2004.
The results were conclusive: This was not a "pedophile" scandal, but a homosexual scandal.
Approximately, 80% of the alleged victims were male, and nearly 90 percent were post-pubescent, with "only a small percentage of Priests receiving allegations of abusing pre-adolescent children."
An updated report, issued in 2011, revealed similar numbers: 81% of sex abuse victims were boys, and 78 percent were post-pubescent.
Both findings put the lie to the oft-spoken claim that this was a "pedophile priest" scandal.
Pedophilia by definition involves children under age 11. The 2011 John Jay study showed the majority of abuse victims were adolescents and teens between ages 12 and 17 — a pathology more properly termed "ephebophilia."
Even Newsweek acknowledged the distinction in 2002: "The great majority of cases now before the Church involve not pedophilia but 'ephebophilia,' an attraction to post-pubescent youths."
The homosexual subculture has always involved sexual attraction to youths, and is a well-accepted part of the gay lifestyle. And evidence shows homosexuals abuse children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.
According to one study, "homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls."
This bears out: Although homosexuals comprise only 1–3 percent of the entire population, they are committing up to 33 percent of all sex crimes against children.
Notwithstanding this overwhelming evidence, Bishops remain timid in their denunciation of the homosexual lifestyle. Neither are they willing to take seriously the numbers of homosexual Priests actively engaged in pastoral ministry within their Dioceses.
And so, the lie continues that the sexual abuse scandal was the result of “pedophile” Priests who took advantage of pre-adolescent children.
In December of last year, the Congregation for Clergy released a document stating that "those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called 'gay culture'" are not to be admitted to seminaries or be ordained Catholic priests.
In a 90-page, highly-nuanced document titled The Gift of the Priestly Vocation, the Congregation for Clergy wrote that those who live the homosexual lifestyle, support the "gay culture," or have "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" "find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women."
"One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendences," the document continued.
Yet, the document took a rather confusing position stating: “If a candidate for the Priesthood experienced homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem like that of an adolesence not yet superseded, then such a case would be different."
Remarkably, the Congregation states: "such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before the ordination to the diaconate.”
Yet, such a statement is made in the complete and total absence of any clinical evidence to support an expectation that a homosexual tendency can be overcome in a period of three years. The statement is completely arbitrary and weakens the overall force of the document entirely.
Still, Pope Francis approved the Congregation’s statement.
It appears, then, that in accepting candidates for the Priesthood, the Church whimsically distinguishes degrees of homosexuality, considering some manifestations of the disorder to be a treatable malady, a transitory problem which an adolescent may encounter yet overcome on his road to maturity.
Such pyscho-babble does little to seriously address the crisis of homosexuality in the Priesthood and the havoc it continues to cause.
Let us be clear: the homosexual community continues to find a welcome place among the ranks of the Catholic Priesthood, gay-friendly Bishops continue to provide cover for them, and the Church continues to suffer the abuses and scandals they cause. Only when these realities change will the scandal of the sexual molestation of youngster entrusted to the care of homosexual Priests come to an end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)