"It is...Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as 'profane novelties of words,' out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: 'This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved' (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim 'Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,' only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself." -- Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum 24 (1914)

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

My Emphasis Penultimet Paragraph

In Toowoomba, legacy of 'Bishop Bill' is confusion and one new priest in 18 years
By David Kerr

Bishop William Morris / Photo Credit: Diocese of Toowoomba
.- Norm and Mavis Power moved to Toowoomba back in 1959, not long after getting married. The attractions of the Queensland city were obvious for a young couple hoping for a family – good schools, a pleasant climate and so many green spaces and parks it’s known across Australia as “the Garden City.” But that wasn’t all.

“Most importantly, we wanted our children to be brought up in the Catholic faith,” explains Mavis.
“At that time there was a monastery right in the middle of the town run by the Blessed Sacrament Fathers. It was a real center of prayer and activity. In fact, all the city’s Catholic churches were full. The life of the Church was so vibrant. Now, though, the monastery is closed and those same churches are empty. It’s so, so sad.”

Catholic life in Toowoomba changed – and changed radically – back in 1993. That was the year the city got a new bishop. Father William Martin Morris was a 49-year-old parish priest from the nearby Diocese of Brisbane. Styling himself as “Bishop Bill,” his innovations were very radical, very visible and instantly applied.

Out went clerical dress. Instead the bishop wore shirt and tie emblazoned with a diocesan crest. Each priest was issued with one as well.

Out went individual confessions. In came collectivized penance services in which participants are granted “general absolution.” Under Church law, general absolution is to be used in extreme circumstances. Under “Bishop Bill” the rare exception became the ordinary rule.

Out went the traditional model of governance by a Catholic bishop. In came a form of administration by committee — including committees appointing priests. In fact, Bishop Morris’ tenure began with a service held in a local retreat center. There he asked the priests of the diocese to sign his letter of appointment from Rome “to indicate their acceptance” of him as their bishop.

Out went the traditional understanding of priesthood. Many parishes started to be run by nuns and lay people with priests only used to administer some sacraments some of the time.
And out went a traditional understanding of the authority of the Church.

So when the Vatican asked Bishop Morris to desist with the practice of general absolution, he responded by carrying out a survey of parishioners on the issue before responding to Rome.

For many ordinary Catholics like the Norm and Mavis Power, life became pretty tough and very upsetting.

“The bishop would tell people what they wanted to hear, not what the Catholic Church teaches,” says Mavis, a mother of five who went on to work with disabled people later in life. Norm, a retired telecoms engineer, agrees.

“Instead of individual confession people would be told to come up in a line, write their sins on a piece of paper and put it in a jar. Plus, an inappropriate form of lay participation was promoted everywhere. So on a Sunday if a priest was away for the weekend they would no longer get a neighboring priest but would, instead, ask lay people to lead the service and give out communion on the grounds that they’d ‘want to keep the community together.’”

For the likes of the Power family this isn’t just a matter of arcane rules or abstract dogma. For them, the teachings and practice of the Catholic Church provide the wellspring for a good and happy life and – for that matter – a better world too. So to withhold or subvert those teachings is viewed as both cruel and abusive.

“It’s been pretty difficult. Really upsetting actually,” says Mavis, “and whenever we wrote to the bishop about any of these things we were always told it was us who were in the wrong.”

In November 2006, though, everything changed. Suddenly unhappiness with Bishop Morris went global. No longer did he just have to placate the Power family of Toowoomba. He now had to explain himself to powers-that-be in Rome. The reason? A pastoral letter written to his entire diocese.

In it Bishop Morris promoted the idea of ordaining women and married men as well as allowing Anglicans, Lutherans and other religions to preside at Mass.

Again, all this flew in the face of Catholic Church teaching and tradition. This marked the beginning of the end for Bishop Morris.

In December 2006 the Vatican asked him to visit Rome as soon as possible in order to discuss his views. Bishop Morris told them he couldn’t possibly make the journey — for, at least, five months. Clearly surprised by this answer, the Vatican wrote again, only a month later, with a similar request.
Again, Bishop Morris said “no.”

“The whole thing was incredible. The flight from Brisbane to Rome takes about 12 hours and there at least one flight a day,” a senior Australian cleric told CNA. “Yet here’s this bishop telling the Vatican that he can’t make that trip at all for nearly half a year! That reaction was little short of scandalous. Any bishop worth his salt would hasten to Rome as quickly as possible. To be honest I think Bishop Morris was hoping that if he strung things out for long enough Rome would just forget all about it. That was never going to happen.”

Rather than wait, the Vatican sent in the well-respected American Archbishop Charles Chaput, OFM Cap. of Denver to review the happenings in Toowoomba. He visited the diocese in April 2007 speaking to all sides involved. In September Bishop Morris was asked to resign.

According to the senior Australian cleric, who asked that his name be withheld, the process again moved very slowly.

“It took Bishop Morris, wait for it, four months to say ‘no.’ He was then, again, asked to resign in February 2008. This time he took a grand total ten months to, again, finally, reply ‘no.’”

Bishop Morris even managed to secure a meeting with the Pope. This took place in June 2009. The message from the pontiff to him was the same – resign. The reply from the bishop, this time five months later, was also the same – no.

The endgame, however, came earlier this year. In a compromise move, Rome told Bishop Morris that he could retire rather than resign. Bishop Morris agreed. Both sides then set a date of May 2 for the announcement. Bishop Morris then made it public on April 27, five days early. The news quickly divided Australia.

“The temple police get their man,” opined journalist Michael McKenna in The Australian newspaper.

“The Catholic Church’s worst enemy resides in the Vatican,” claimed columnist Barney Zwartz in The Age newspaper.

Meanwhile, Bishop Morris has repeatedly taken to the television and radio airwaves claiming he was “denied natural justice due to a lack of process” by the Vatican. He also claims that his meeting with the Pope was, “like the Inquisition. He was immovable. There was no dialogue.”

Others, however, see things differently.

“The reality is that if Bishop Morris of Toowoomba had been working for a commercial organization covered by the Trades Practices Act,” wrote columnist Kate Edwards on the ABC News website, “he would surely have been liable for prosecution on the grounds of false and misleading advertising. He represented himself as teaching the Catholic faith – but was not in fact doing so!”

“Morris’s removal sends a clear message to bishops, in Australia and around the world. The Holy See’s patience is not, as it long seemed, limitless,” wrote journalist Christopher Pearson, again in The Australian. “The more realistic, liberal bishops are going to have to kiss goodbye to any lingering fantasies they clung to in the 90s of ordaining nuns, or at least keep it to themselves.”

The row in the secular press reflects a similar division within the Catholic community. In fact, Vatican officials have been so worried by the dominance of unorthodox belief and practice in large parts of Catholic Australia that in 1998 they summoned the country’s bishops to a meeting.

The result was a “Statement of Conclusions” which offered a blunt critique of where the church in Australia was falling short in terms of Catholic orthodoxy. The stakes are high.

“The next few years will be crucial for the future of Catholicism in Australia with many big, important dioceses falling vacant – Brisbane, Hobart, Perth. The whole hue of the episcopal conference could be made over in the next two years. That gives added significance to the fall-out from events in Toowoomba,” says another senior Australian priest who spoke to CNA.

Meanwhile back in Toowoomba, the job of rebuilding begins.

The Diocese of Toowoomba spans more than 188,000 square miles and has a Catholic population of roughly 66,000 served by 35 parishes.

Bishop Brian Finnegan of Brisbane has now been appointed an administrator until a new bishop can be found. Whoever gets the job will have their work cut out, sources tell CNA.

“I don’t think there’s been one priestly vocation in all the years Bishop Morris was in charge. Perhaps one – and he was a late vocation. And there are no young people. Take a look at their website – their ‘Ministry for Young People’ has no staff because they have no young people. It’s all old folk in dwindling number. Most of their priests are over-65 and their youngest priest is in his late forties!”

That situation compares miserably to other Australian diocese where a revival in Catholic orthodoxy had led, in recent years, to a revival in vocations and parish life.

As for the Powers, they’ve now got 13 grandchildren to help bring-up in the Catholic faith. They say they’ll keep praying for a good new bishop – and for their previous bishop too.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/in-toowoomba-legacy-of-bishop-bill-is-confusion-and-one-new-priest-in-18-years/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29&utm_content=Twitter

 

Finally! SP Instruction Release This Friday

From the Vatican

NOTE TO JOURNALISTS
Friday, May 13, 2011 will be announced by the Press' Education Universae Ecclesiae Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei on the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum" of Pope Benedict XVI . Education The afternoon will be published on the issue of L'Osservatore Romano, dated May 14.

The text of Education - in Latin, Italian, French, English, German, Spanish and Portuguese will be available to accredited journalists from 10 am on Friday 13 May, an embargoed until 12 am . Education will be provided with the text also Imprint.

http://press.catholica.va/news_services/bulletin/news/27401.php?index=27401&lang=ge



From Father Zuhlsdorf this morning:

Universae Ecclesiae… Instruction on Summorum Pontificum.

The cat is out of the bag.
The Instruction is called Universae Ecclesiae and it will indeed be published very soon. There is an embargo on the text until 12 noon Rome time 13 May, at which time I will offer some analysis of the document. There will be a press conference on 13 May and it will be in the afternoon edition of L’Osservatore Romano, which is now on line, of course.
The text seems to be out and around. Three people have offered it to me. I have it. I will honor the embargo, unless someone else breaks it.
Fishwrap is going to hate this.
It is not a perfect game for our side, but it is a no hitter.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/05/universae-ecclesiae-instruction-on-summorum-pontificum/#comment-272927

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Addressing the Church's Attrition Problem

05/09/2011
Margaret Cabaniss

It’s no secret that the Catholic Church has an attrition problem. As Father Thomas Reese points out in his column “The hidden exodus: Catholics becoming Protestants,” the findings of the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, point to a stark reality:

One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic.

All Catholics have their pet theories about why this is happening, and the best way to address it — usually, as Father Reese notes, colored by their personal experience and preferences for how the Church should be run. This is no less true for Father Reese himself, as when he addresses the problem of young people leaving the Church:

[T]he Pew data shows that two-thirds of Catholics who become Protestants do so before they reach the age of 24. The church must make a preferential option for teenagers and young adults or it will continue to bleed. Programs and liturgies that cater to their needs must take precedence over the complaints of fuddy-duddies and rubrical purists.

But there’s a crucial error here: Without fail, every parish where I’ve been a member already does make a “preferential option” for young Catholics, and has for a long time. Life Teen and young adult Masses have been specifically designed to “cater to their needs” — fuddy-duddies and rubrical purists notwithstanding — and yet the trend remains the same.

Why aren’t these programs working? They tend to emphasize modern, “accessible” liturgies; social justice outreach; and tight-knit communities — the very things done so well by many Protestant communions. But in a head-to-head battle, wherever the Catholic Church is simply mimicking these attributes and not offering anything distinct, young adults continue to drift away.

If the Catholic Church is considered no different than the Protestant church down the street, there is no reason for young people to stay — unless, that is, we can show that we offer something that can’t be found anywhere else: namely, the Eucharist. Community is important; social outreach is important; inspiring liturgies are important — though given the rise in interest in the Traditional Latin Mass among young people in particular, “relevant” may not be the watered-down pabulum we’ve been spoon-feeding them for so long.

But all of this means nothing if we haven’t conveyed the fundamental truth at the heart of our Faith: that we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord in the Eucharist at every Mass, through an unbroken 2,000-year chain stretching back to Christ Himself. Any attempt to address the attrition problem that doesn’t begin here will fail before it has begun.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/addressing-the-churchs-attrition-problem

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Benedict XVI, the love of the Good Shepherd

Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke

Source: The Ship No. 226 of May 2011
Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke Prefect of Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. Very close to Benedict XVI, he will chair the 28 and 29, a pilgrimage of the Institute of Christ the King in Lourdes in this month of Mary. We speak here of the pontificate and the liturgical question.

La Nef - After more than three years, what is your assessment of the implementation of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum?

Cardinal Burke - In its implementation, I found an interest and appreciation always largest for the extraordinary form of Roman rite among the faithful in general and among young Catholics in particular. Excellent initiatives took place to promote awareness of the Motu proprio and its goal, set by our Holy Father when he passed. I think of personal as well as several speeches Congress on the Sacred Liturgy, which have paid particular attention to the extraordinary form of Roman rite and its relationship to the ordinary form. Moreover, several books and articles have been published, which have been aimed at a comprehensive study of the Motu proprio.

It is obvious that the implementation of Summorum Pontificum has not been made consistently throughout the universal Church. In some places, its application has even met with resistance from those who pretend not to understand their goals or who argue that the motu proprio can not be applied before the publication of the Instruction on the implementation of the it. I hope that the Instruction will be published soon, so that the motu proprio can be applied more universally and uniformly, as the deep pastoral concern of our Holy Father for the holy liturgy. To those who claim not to understand the intentions of Summorum Pontificum, I suggest to read the Letter to the Bishops, written by our Holy Father during its enactment, and the many writings of the Holy Father on the liturgy, published before and after his election to the See of Peter. I think, for example, in his masterpiece, The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ad Solem, 2001).

In my case, the implementation of the motu proprio has allowed me to grow and expand greatly the knowledge and love of the liturgy, the highest expression of faith and life of the church. Rereading the apostolic letter itself and the Letter to the Bishops accompanying the pope, I see how the Holy Father was inspired by making this new liturgical discipline of the universal Church. I myself was a personal witness of the good fruits of this new discipline.

As for the future, I am convinced that the faithful implementation of Summorum Pontificum will contribute to genuine renewal of the liturgy. Such has been the desire of the Fathers of Vatican II, but it was more or less betrayed by how his teaching has been implemented after its closure. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, at the time, had repeatedly called for a "reform the reform" to allow full correction of erroneous interpretations of fuzzy and the Council's teaching on the Sacred Liturgy and the reception of the authentic magisterial teaching, for the greater glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful.






http://www.lanef.net/t_article/benoit-xvi-lamour-du-bon-pasteur-mgr-raymond-leo-burke.asp?page=0

Sunday, May 1, 2011

What The Popes Have To Say About Socialism

Written by Gustavo Solimeo
February 24, 2010
Pope_Pius_IX.jpg


PIUS IX (1846-1878):
“Overthrow [of] the entire order of human affairs”
“You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings.” (Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, December 8, 1849)
LEO XIII (1878-1903):
Hideous monster
“...communism, socialism, nihilism, hideous deformities of the civil society of men and almost its ruin.” (Encyclical Diuturnum, June 29, 1881)

Ruin of all institutions
“... For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists” (Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, n. 27).

A sect “that threatens civil society with destruction”
Pope_Leo_XIII.jpg
Leo XIII (1877-1903): Socialists assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law.
“…We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning - the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever. Surely, these are they who, as the sacred Scriptures testify, ‘Defile the flesh, despise dominion and blaspheme majesty.’ (Jud. 8).” (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

Socialists debase the natural union of man and woman and assail the right of property
“They [socialists, communists, or nihilists] debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust. Lured, in fine, by the greed of present goods, which is ‘the root of all evils, which some coveting have erred from the faith’ (1 Tim. 6:10.3), they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one's mode of life.” (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

Destructive sect
“...socialists and members of other seditious societies, who labor unceasingly to destroy the State even to its foundations.” (Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888)

Enemy of society and of Religion
“...there is need for a union of brave minds with all the resources they can command. The harvest of misery is before our eyes, and the dreadful projects of the most disastrous national upheavals are threatening us from the growing power of the socialistic movement. They have insidiously worked their way into the very heart of the community, and in the darkness of their secret gatherings, and in the open light of day, in their writings and their harangues, they are urging the masses onward to sedition; they fling aside religious discipline; they scorn duties; they clamor only for rights; they are working incessantly on the multitudes of the needy which daily grow greater, and which, because of their poverty are easily deluded and led into error. It is equally the concern of the State and of religion, and all good men
Pope_Pius_X.png
Saint Pius X (1903-1914)
should deem it a sacred duty to preserve and guard both in the honor which is their due.” (Encyclical Graves de Communi Re, January 18, 1901, n. 21)

SAINT PIUS X (1903-1914):
The dream of re-shaping society will bring socialism“But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, ‘the reign of love and justice’ ... What are they going to produce? ... A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.” (Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique ["Our Apostolic Mandate"] to the French Bishops, August 15, 1910, condemning the movement Le Sillon)


Pope_Benedict_XV.jpg
Benedict XV
BENEDICT XV (1914-1922):
The condemnation of socialism should never be forgotten
“It is not our intention here to repeat the arguments which clearly expose the errors of Socialism and of similar doctrines. Our predecessor, Leo XIII, most wisely did so in truly memorable Encyclicals; and you, Venerable Brethren, will take the greatest care that those grave precepts are never forgotten, but that whenever circumstances call for it, they should be clearly expounded and inculcated in Catholic associations and congresses, in sermons and in the Catholic press.” (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914, n. 13)

PIUS XI (1922-1939):
Pope_Pius_XI_1922.jpg
Pius XI (1922-1939): "No one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist."
Socialism, fundamentally contrary to Christian truth
“... For Socialism, which could then be termed almost a single system and which maintained definite teachings reduced into one body of doctrine, has since then split chiefly into two sections, often opposing each other and even bitterly hostile, without either one however abandoning a position fundamentally contrary to Christian truth that was characteristic of Socialism.” (Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 111)
Socialism cannot be reconciled with Catholic Doctrine
“But what if Socialism has really been so tempered and modified as to the class struggle and private ownership that there is in it no longer anything to be censured on these points? Has it thereby renounced its contradictory nature to the Christian religion? This is the question that holds many minds in suspense. And numerous are the Catholics who, although they clearly understand that Christian principles can never be abandoned or diminished seem to turn their eyes to the Holy See and earnestly beseech Us to decide whether this form of Socialism has so far recovered from false doctrines that it can be accepted without the sacrifice of any Christian principle and in a certain sense be baptized. That We, in keeping with Our fatherly solicitude, may answer their petitions, We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth.” (Ibid. n. 117)
Catholic Socialism, a contradiction
“[Socialism] is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.” (Ibid. n. 120)
Pope_Pius_XII_sedia_gestatoria.jpg
Pius XII

PIUS XII (1939-1958):
The Church will fight to the end, in defense of supreme values threatened by socialism
“[The Church undertook] the protection of the individual and the family against a current threatening to bring about a total socialization which in the end would make the specter of the 'Leviathan' become a shocking reality. The Church will fight this battle to the end, for it is a question of supreme values: the dignity of man and the salvation of souls." (“Radio message to the Katholikentag of Vienna,” September 14, 1952 in Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. XIV, p. 314)

The state can not be regarded as being above all
"To consider the State as something ultimate to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations." (Encyclical Summi Pontificatus, October 20, 1939, n. 60)


Pope_John_XXIII.jpg
John XXIII
JOHN XXIII
(1958-1963):
“No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism”
“Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.” (Encyclical Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961, n. 34)
Pope_Paul_VI.jpg
Paul VI

PAUL VI (1963-1978):
Too often Christians tend to idealize socialism
“Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated.” (Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, May 14, 1971, n. 31)
Pope_John_Paul_II.jpg
John Paul II (1978-2005)


JOHN PAUL II (1978-2005):
Socialism: Danger of a “simple and radical solution”
“It may seem surprising that ‘socialism’ appeared at the beginning of the Pope's critique of solutions to the ‘question of the working class’ at a time when ‘socialism’ was not yet in the form of a strong and powerful State, with all the resources which that implies, as was later to happen. However, he correctly judged the danger posed to the masses by the attractive presentation of this simple and radical solution to the ‘question of the working class.’" (Encyclical Centesimus Annus − On the 100th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, May 1, 1991, n. 12)

Fundamental error of socialism: A mistaken conception of the person
“Continuing our reflections, ... we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property.” (Ibid, n. 13)

BENEDICT XVI (2005 - present):
“We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything”
Pope_Benedict_XVI_WDC.jpg
Benedict XVI
“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person − every person − needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) − a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, December 25, 2005, n. 28)

Political Candidates' Position On Abortion

Here is an excellent resouce to check the position on abortion your riding's candidates have:
http://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Federal

Canadians - On May 2 Vote Pro-Life (or else)

A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters
Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD

1. Isn’t conscience the same as my own opinions and feelings? And doesn’t everyone have the right to his or her own conscience?

Conscience is NOT the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience cannot be identical with your feelings because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or future, while your feelings come from another part of your soul and should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature and is identical with the Ten Commandments. Unlike the civil laws made by legislators, or the opinions that you hold, the natural moral law is not anything that you invent, but rather discover within yourself and is the governing norm of your conscience. In short, Conscience is the voice of truth within you, and your opinions need to be in harmony with that truth. As a Catholic, you have the benefit of the Church’s teaching authority or Magisterium endowed upon her by Christ. The Magisterium assists you and all people of good will in understanding the natural moral law as it relates to specific issues. As a Catholic, you have the obligation to be correctly informed and normed by the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium. As for your feelings, they need to be educated by virtue so as to be in harmony with conscience’s voice of truth. In this way, you will have a sound conscience, according to which we you will feel guilty when you are guilty, and feel morally upright when you are morally upright. We should strive to avoid the two opposite extremes of a lax conscience and a scrupulous conscience. Meeting the obligation of continually attending to this formation of conscience will increase the likelihood that, in the actual operation or activity of conscience, you will act with a certain conscience, which clearly perceives that a given concrete action is a good action that was rightly done or should be done. Being correctly informed and certain in the actual operation of conscience is the goal of the continuing formation of conscience. Otherwise put, you should strive to avoid being incorrectly informed and doubtful in the actual judgment of conscience about a particular action or omission. You should never act on a doubtful conscience.


2. Is it morally permissible to vote for all candidates of a single party?

This would depend on the positions held by the candidates of a single party. If any one or more of them held positions that were opposed to the natural moral law, then it would not be morally permissible to vote for all candidates of this one party. Your correctly informed conscience transcends the bounds of any one political party.


3. If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate?

If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a “disqualifying issue.” A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. You must sacrifice your feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate in any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human rights. A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for. You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights. Key to understanding the point above about “disqualifying issues” is the distinction between policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally acceptable goal. For example, in a society’s effort to distribute the goods of health care to its citizens, there can be legitimate disagreement among citizens and political candidates alike as to whether this or that health care plan would most effectively accomplish society’s goal. In the pursuit of the best possible policy or strategy, technical as distinct (although not separate) from moral reason is operative. Technical reason is the kind of reasoning involved in arriving at the most efficient or effective result. On the other hand, no policy or strategy that is opposed to the moral principles of the natural law is morally acceptable. Thus, technical reason should always be subordinate to and normed by moral reason, the kind of reasoning that is the activity of conscience and that is based on the natural moral law.


4. If I have strong feelings or opinions in favor of a particular candidate, even if he is pro-abortion, why may I not vote for him?

As explained in question 1 above, neither your feelings nor your opinions are identical with your conscience. Neither your feelings nor your opinions can take the place of your conscience. Your feelings and opinions should be governed by your conscience. If the candidate about whom you have strong feelings or opinions is pro-abortion, then your feelings and opinions need to be corrected by your correctly informed conscience, which would tell you that it is wrong for you to allow your feelings and opinions to give lesser weight to the fact that the candidate supports a moral evil.


5. If I may not vote for a pro-abortion candidate, then should it not also be true that I can’t vote for a pro-capital punishment candidate?

It is not correct to think of abortion and capital punishment as the very same kind of moral issue. On the one hand, direct abortion is an intrinsic evil, and cannot be justified for any purpose or in any circumstances. On the other hand, the Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor may resort to the death penalty if no other means of defense is sufficient. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is “rare, if not virtually nonexistent.” Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a “rare” case arises that warrants the death penalty. Moreover, if such a rare case does arise and requires resorting to capital punishment, this societal act of self-defense would be a *morally good action* even if it does have the unintended and unavoidable evil effect of the death of the aggressor. Thus, unlike the case of abortion, it would be morally irresponsible to rule out all such “rare” possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately.


6. If I think that a candidate who is pro-abortion has better ideas to serve the poor, and the pro-life candidate has bad ideas that will hurt the poor, why may I not vote for the candidate that has the better ideas for serving the poor?

Serving the poor is not only admirable, but also obligatory for Catholics as an exercise of solidarity. Solidarity has to do with the sharing of both spiritual and material goods, and with what the Church calls the preferential option for the poor. This preference means that we have the duty to give priority to helping those most needful, both materially and spiritually. Beginning in the family, solidarity extends to every human association, even to the international moral order. Based on the response to question 3 above, two important points must be made. First, when it comes to the matter of determining how social and economic policy can best serve the poor, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches proposed, and therefore legitimate disagreement among voters and candidates for office. Secondly, solidarity can never be at the price of embracing a “disqualifying issue.” Besides, when it comes to the unborn, abortion is a most grievous offense against solidarity, for the unborn are surely among society’s most needful. The right to life is a paramount issue because as Pope John Paul II says it is “the first right, on which all the others are based, and which cannot be recuperated once it is lost.” If a candidate for office refuses solidarity with the unborn, he has laid the ground for refusing solidarity with anyone.


7. If a candidate says that he is personally opposed to abortion but feels the need to vote for it under the circumstances, doesn’t this candidate’s personal opposition to abortion make it morally permissible for me to vote for him, especially if I think that his other views are the best for people, especially the poor?

A candidate for office who says that he is personally opposed to abortion but actually votes in favor of it is either fooling himself or trying to fool you. Outside of the rare case in which a hostage is forced against his will to perform evil actions with his captors, a person who carries out an evil action ¾ such as voting for abortion ¾ performs an immoral act, and his statement of personal opposition to the moral evil of abortion is either self-delusion or a lie. If you vote for such a candidate, you would be an accomplice in advancing the moral evil of abortion. Therefore, it is not morally permissible to vote for such a candidate for office, even, as explained in questions 3 and 6 above, you think that the candidate’s other views are best for the poor.


8. What if none of the candidates are completely pro-life?

As Pope John Paul II explains in his encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), “…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” Logically, it follows from these words of the Pope that a voter may likewise vote for that candidate who will most likely limit the evils of abortion or any other moral evil at issue.


9. What if one leading candidate is anti-abortion except in the cases of rape or incest, another leading candidate is completely pro-abortion, and a trailing candidate, not likely to win, is completely anti-abortion. Would I be obliged to vote for the candidate not likely to win?

In such a case, the Catholic voter may clearly choose to vote for the candidate not likely to win. In addition, the Catholic voter may assess that voting for that candidate might only benefit the completely pro-abortion candidate, and, precisely for the purpose of curtailing the evil of abortion, decide to vote for the leading candidate that is anti-abortion but not perfectly so. This decision would be in keeping with the words of the Pope quoted in question 8 above.


10. What if all the candidates from whom I have to choose are pro-abortion? Do I have to abstain from voting at all? What do I do?

Obviously, one of these candidates is going to win the election. Thus, in this dilemma, you should do your best to judge which candidate would do the least moral harm. However, as explained in question 5 above, you should not place a candidate who is pro-capital punishment (and anti-abortion) in the same moral category as a candidate who is pro-abortion. Faced with such a set of candidates, there would be no moral dilemma, and the clear moral obligation would be to vote for the candidate who is pro-capital punishment, not necessarily because he is pro-capital punishment, but because he is anti-abortion.


11. Is not the Church’s stand that abortion must be illegal a bit of an exception? Does not the Church generally hold that government should restrict its legislation of morality significantly?

The Church’s teaching that abortion should be illegal is not an exception. St. Thomas Aquinas put it this way: “Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.” [ emphasis added]. Abortion qualifies as a grievous vice that hurts others, and the lack of prohibition of this evil by society is something by which human society cannot be maintained. As Pope John Paul II has emphasized, the denial of the right to life, in principle, sets the stage, in principle, for the denial of all other rights.


12. What about elected officials who happen to be of the same party affiliation? Are they committing a sin by being in the same party, even if they don’t advocate pro-choice views? Are they guilty by association?

Being of the same political party as those who advocate pro-abortion is indeed a serious evil IF I belong to this political party IN ORDER TO ASSOCIATE MYSELF with that party’s advocacy of pro-abortion policies. However, it can also be true that being of such a political party has as its purpose to change the policies of the party. Of course, if this is the purpose, one would have to consider whether it is reasonable to think the political party’s policies can be changed. Assuming that it is reasonable to think so, then it would be morally justifiable to remain in that political party. Remaining in that political party cannot be instrumental in the advancing of pro-abortion policies (especially if I am busily striving to change the party’s policies) as can my VOTING for candidates or for a political party with a pro-abortion policy.


13. What about voting for a pro-abortion person for something like state treasurer, in which case the candidate would have no say on matters of life in the capacity of her duties, it just happens to be her personal position. This would not be a sin, right?

If someone were running for state treasurer and that candidate made it a point to state publicly that he was in favor of exterminating people over the age of 70, would you vote for him? The fact that the candidate has that evil in his mind tells you that there are easily other evils in his mind; and the fact that he would publicly state it is a danger signal. If personal character matters in a political candidate, and personal character involves the kind of thoughts a person harbors, then such a candidate who publicly states that he is in favor of the evil of exterminating people over the age of 70 - or children who are unborn - has also disqualified himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. I would go further and say that such a candidate, in principle - in the light of the natural law - disqualifies himself from public office.


14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?

Except in the case in which a voter is faced with all pro-abortion candidates (in which case, as explained in question 8 above, he or she strives to determine which of them would cause the let damage in this regard), a candidate that is pro-abortion disqualifies himself from receiving a Catholic’s vote. This is because being pro-abortion cannot simply be placed alongside the candidate's other positions on Medicare and unemployment, for example; and this is because abortion is intrinsically evil and cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.


http://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Letting The Smoke Out

Sunday’s beatification will be of a holy pope who began the fightback against the smoke of Satan

It will take 100 years to recover from the 1960s and 70s: but John Paul set us back on course
By William Oddie on Thursday, 28 April 2011
Sunday’s beatification will be of a holy pope who began the fightback against the smoke of SatanJohn Paul II's greatest achievement was to defend the stable and objective character of Catholic teaching (Photo: CNS)

We have short memories; we take our recent history too easily for granted. Few people, it seems – at least among those who imply that the problems we still face as a Church were actually Pope John Paul’s fault – remember the state of the Catholic Church at the end of the reign of the unhappy Pope Paul VI, during which forces of disintegration were unleashed within the Church which brought it to the edge of losing all credibility as a defender of basic Christian orthodoxy.

This work of darkness was brought about, not by the Council itself, but by some of those, certainly, who had attended it. It was certainly not the work, as some still confidently claim, of a liberal pope: for if Pope Paul was such a convinced liberal, what about Humanae Vitae? What happened during his pontificate was clearly far from his intention. At a homily he preached in 1972, he is reported as saying, now famously, that he had “believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness … And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that … there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. It is as if from some mysterious crack… the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.”

He was speaking particularly about the liturgy: but just as disastrous was the unchallenged rise during his pontificate of the so-called “alternative magisterium” of Küng, Schillebeeckx and the rest of their malign brood. It was a time of great destruction; and to destroy is always easier than to rebuild. Recovering from the aftermath of the Council will take 100 years. But Pope John Paul began the fightback: he set the barque of Peter, and the Church with it, firmly back on course.

His greatest achievement, as I have already written in this column, was that he did more than any pope of the last century to defend and reassert beyond any doubt the stable and objective character of Catholic teaching. He saw off the alternative magisterium, not by suppressing individuals (though Küng, for instance, had his licence to teach Catholic doctrine removed) but by clear and unequivocal teaching: and as I wrote when the beatification was announced, as a result he made it possible for hundreds of thousands of non-Catholics like myself, tired of the uncertainties of secularised versions of Christianity, to come into full communion with the Holy See.

If you doubt me when I say that he made it possible for many to become Catholics, despite their own perception of the deep attractions of the Catholic tradition, consider the case of Malcolm Muggeridge. In Something Beautiful for God, an explanation of why he resisted becoming a Catholic, despite even the urging of Mother Teresa, he pointed to the circumstance
“…that the Church, for inscrutable reasons of its own, has decided to have a reformation just when the previous one – Luther’s – is finally running into the sand.
“I make no judgment about something which, as a non-member, is no concern of mine; but if I were a member, then I should be forced to say that, in my opinion, if men were to be stationed at the doors of churches with whips to drive worshippers away, or inside the religious orders specifically to discourage vocations, or among the clergy to spread alarm and despondency, they could not hope to be as effective in achieving these ends as are trends and policies seemingly now dominant within the Church.
“Feeling so, it would be preposterous to seek admission, more particularly as, if the ecumenical course is fully run, luminaries of the Church to which I nominally belong, like the former Bishop of Woolwich, for whom – putting it mildly – I have little regard, will in due course take their place in the Roman Catholic hierarchy among the heirs of St Peter.”
But then, Karol Wojtyla became pope. The old indiscriminate ecumenism was allowed quietly to run into the sands; the mists of uncertainty were blown away, and the Magisterium was revealed, still standing, firm on the rock of Peter; and within a very few years, Muggeridge became a Catholic at last. So did many others, including myself.

That is why I was elated at the news of his beatification: because of his re-establishment of the simple fact of the Church’s authority to declare the objective truth of Catholic doctrine (Veritatis Splendor, The Catechism of the Catholic Church and on and on), I had been enabled at last to come home, to escape finally from a Church in which there was absolutely no means of coming to a mind about anything, a Church which actually requires of its clergy no more than a formal acceptance of the creeds – not as declarations of beliefs held to be actually true, but as what the C of E sanctimoniously calls part of a “heritage of faith”. That is why I was at first so depressed by the hostility in some quarters, even within the Church, to the announcement of Sunday’s beatification. I had thought, in Pope John Paul’s final years, that we had moved beyond all that.

Simply remember. It wasn’t just that he recalled the Church to itself: he showed the power of the faith by his astonishing geopolitical achievement in finally giving the answer to Stalin’s contemptuous question “how many divisions has the pope?” This is how George Weigel summed up this part of his achievement:
In 1978, no one expected that the defining figure of the last quarter of the 20th century would be a Polish priest and bishop. Christianity was finished as a world-shaping force, according to the opinion-leaders of the time; it might endure as a vehicle of personal piety, but Christian conviction would play no role in shaping the 21st-century world. Yet within six months of his election, John Paul II had demonstrated the dramatic capacity of Christian conviction to create a revolution of conscience that, in turn, created a new and powerful form of politics – the politics that eventually led to the revolutions of 1989 and the liberation of Central and Eastern Europe.
We know that he made mistakes: all popes do. But on any reasonable assessment, both in the Church and in the world his achievements were immensely more significant than his errors. His was a flawed greatness, perhaps; but it was greatness, nevertheless.

As I wrote when Sunday’s big event was first announced, however, Pope John Paul is being beatified not because of his greatness but because of his heroic sanctity. The five-year waiting period to begin the Cause was waived on account of what the Congregation for the Causes of Saints described as the “imposing fame for holiness” enjoyed by John Paul II during his lifetime. And on Sunday, that holiness (undisputed by any who really knew him, and affirmed most clearly by the present Holy Father, who knew him better than most) will be all that we need to remember.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/04/28/sunday%e2%80%99s-beatification-will-be-of-a-holy-pope-who-began-the-fightback-against-the-smoke-of-satan/

Monday, April 25, 2011

Increasing Vocations

Why the Rosary, Eucharistic Adoration, and good websites are important: they increase vocations to the priesthood.

http://www.usccb.org/vocations/classof2011/ordination-class-2011-report.pdf

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Happy Easter

Easter Sermon
By St. John Chrysostom
Is there anyone who is a devout lover of God? Let them enjoy this beautiful bright festival! Is there anyone who is a grateful servant? Let them rejoice and enter into the joy of their Lord!

Are there any weary with fasting? Let them now receive their wages! If any have toiled from the first hour, let them receive their due reward; If any have come after the third hour, let him with gratitude join in the Feast! And he that arrived after the sixth hour, let him not doubt; for he too shall sustain no loss. And if any delayed until the ninth hour, let him not hesitate; but let him come too. And he who arrived only at the eleventh hour, let him not be afraid by reason of his delay.

For the Lord is gracious and receives the last even as the first. He gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour, as well as to him that toiled from the first. To this one He gives, and upon another He bestows. He accepts the works as He greets the endeavor. The deed He honors and the intention He commends.

Let us all enter into the joy of the Lord! First and last alike receive your reward; rich and poor, rejoice together! Sober and slothful, celebrate the day!

You that have kept the fast, and you that have not, rejoice today for the Table is richly laden! Feast royally on it, the calf is a fatted one. Let no one go away hungry. Partake, all, of the cup of faith. Enjoy all the riches of His goodness!

Let no one grieve at his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen from the grave. Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free. He has destroyed it by enduring it.

He destroyed Hades when He descended into it. He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh. Isaias foretold this when he said, "You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below."

Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with.
It was in an uproar because it is mocked.
It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed.
It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated.
It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive.
Hell took a body, and discovered God.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.
O death, where is thy sting?
O Hades, where is thy victory?

Christ is Risen, and you, O death, are annihilated!
Christ is Risen, and the evil ones are cast down!
Christ is Risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is Risen, and life is liberated!
Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead; for Christ having risen from the dead, is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To Him be Glory and Power forever and ever. Amen!

Thursday, April 21, 2011

US Catholic Church finds astonishing variety of people joining this Easter

US Catholic Church finds astonishing variety of people joining this Easter
ImprimirIncrementar tamaño de fuenteDisminuir tamaño de fuente

Catholics participating in the Easter Vigil. Credit: Mazur
.- A Muslim, a family of seven, a Marine, a former abortion clinic administrator – these are just a few of the many faces of people from around the country who are slated to join the Catholic Church at Easter.

The U.S. bishops' conference recently profiled a handful of unique stories from individuals in different states, each of whom will be either baptized or confirmed during the Church's universal celebration of the Easter Vigil on April 24.

Although the numbers are still trickling in for this year, the conference reported that in 2010, there were over 43,000 adult baptisms in the U.S. and more than 75,000 people received into full communion with the Church.

Soon-to-be baptized New Orleans resident Ahdija Cheumbike Baker was raised a Muslim. The daughter of a Detroit man and a Tanzanian woman, Baker is one of the 282 catechumens and candidates that the Catholic Church in New Orleans will be welcoming at Easter.

Baker said that she struggled with some of her Muslim beliefs throughout her life and that ultimately, the “love of the Lord” as well as a love interest drove her to start attending a local Catholic church, St. Peter Claver.

She said that especially after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, “I felt compelled to look for a church to call home so that I could give my thanks to God.”

“If I had gone to a church that gets you in and out in 45 minutes, I probably wouldn’t have changed my religion; but at St. Peter Claver I feel a deep connection. The way that the priest speaks in his homilies moved me. I felt at home and accepted, and they have become my family.”

Eighteen year-old Kalene Laforest is a Marine and feels compelled to join the Catholic Church before going on assignment in June. A catechumen at St. Peter’s Church in LaGrange, Georgia, LaForest said that she wanted a faith with depth, history, deep spirituality, tradition, and “no all-over-the-place craziness.” She is among 1,912 who will join the Catholic Church in the Atlanta archdiocese this year.
Across the U.S. in the Archdiocese of San Francisco, a family of seven will be welcomed into the Church. James and Michelle House, who are parishioners at St. Catherine of Siena Parish, will come into full communion at the Easter Vigil. In the following week, infant David, 2 months old, will be baptized, while his siblings Kristina, James, Alexandra and Joseph will be received into the Church.
Michelle House said the family, who are former Episcopalians, found a welcoming community at St. Catherine's when they moved to northern California.

In Austin, Texas, Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood clinic director and author of the bestselling book “Unplanned,” is getting ready to enter the Catholic Church.

Due to a personnel shortage at the abortion clinic she used to work in, she was called in to assist in an ultrasound-guided abortion for the first time in September 2009.

The next few minutes changed Johnson's life irrevocably, as she watched the 13 week-old baby –whom she had believed to be incapable of feeling anything– squirming and twisting to avoid the tube into which it would be vacuumed.

Shocked by what she had seen, Johnson still initially continued her work running the clinic and promoting its work. Just a few weeks later, however, she was in the nearby office of the Coalition For Life, telling its director Shawn Carney –with whom she was well-acquainted, from his years of opposition to Planned Parenthood– that she could no longer continue helping women have abortions.
Johnson and her husband have grown in their faith during the past year, and are now preparing to enter the Catholic Church. In a Jan. 13 interview with CNA she said that one of the final obstacles, in the course of her Catholic conversion, was the Church's teaching on the immorality of all artificial methods of birth control.

Planned Parenthood's mentality toward contraception, as she explained, stuck with her for a period of time even after she rejected abortion. Even as she became interested in the Catholic Church, she clung to the notion that artificial birth control was an advance for women and society. But she kept an open mind, studying Pope John Paul II's “Theology of the Body” and other sources of Church teaching.

An experience in a Catholic parish finally made her understand the fullness of the Church's teaching on sexuality.

This time, the vision of a child was not shocking, but profoundly life-affirming.

“One day, we were sitting in Mass … I was sitting behind this woman, who I don't know, and this little infant.” Gazing at that child, Johnson said she finally understood the Church's insistence on marriages remaining open to new life.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/us-catholic-church-finds-astonishing-variety-of-people-joining-this-easter/

Sunday, April 3, 2011

The Myth Of The Pedophile Priest

Healing: In Defense of Priests

Cardinal Ratzinger (Future Benedict XVI) Blesses Body of Pope John Paul The Great

WARNING: GRAPHIC AND EXPLICIT SEXUAL CONTENT AND LANGUAGE!!!

I have earned the right to say what I am about to say. I spent seven years of my life in my twenties working with homeless teens at Covenant House in New York City’s Times Square. Five of those years were spent working with unwed mothers, and the last two working on what was at the time the only residential treatment facility in the US for adolescents with HIV/AIDS. Many of the children with whom I worked had worked on the streets as prostitutes, male and female.

In the quiet moments at night, when my family are all asleep and I am alone with my thoughts, my mind periodically drifts back to those seven long years in a job where most people lasted no more than 2-3 years. As a husband and a father of three small children, one boy and two girls, I cannot but help to reevaluate those experiences through the prism of my fatherhood.

Memories of abused children become unbearable now. I simply cannot fathom such evil. It’s all around us. The hyper-sexualization of society is a demonic force from the pit of hell itself. The sexual revolution has been a war aimed at us, humanity. It has torn apart our dignity, reducing us to an animal level.

I recall one day at Covenant House when I was filling in for someone on a unit for males 17-20 years old, a young man came up to another resident outside of my office and spoke of a young girl whom he met in the dining room and went with to an unused platform at the Port Authority Bus Terminal to have sex. His exact words have never left me:

“Yo B. I doged that bitch brother! I doged that bitch!!”
{Emphasis his. He invented a new verb: To Dog}

Not a shred of human reference or dignity in either that statement, or the location where he paid his canine courtesies.

What have we become?

Against this nuclear meltdown of Western Civilization has come the revelation that a minority of Catholic Clergy, mostly homosexuals, have committed unspeakable atrocity against prepubescent children. According to the John Jay study, 4% of Catholic clergy have been accused over the past 50 years. You can read the report here.

Here is the victim tally from the study, from an accounting of every diocese’s Priest personnel file for the past 50 years:
GENDER OF ALLEGED VICTIM
Gender Count % of Total
Male 8,499 80.9%
Female 2,004 19.1%
Transsexual 2 .0%
Total 10,505 100.0%

Each and every one of these cases represents a life destroyed, a family destroyed. Not one should ever be minimized. Not one.

I’ve seen firsthand the terrible destruction wrought by predators. Now as a father, it’s simply more than I can stand to have to recall as I contemplate my children’s innocence. The thought of perverting that innocence stirs outrage, and we have been right to register that outrage during these many years since the first revelations emerged in the mid-’80′s.

Cleaning Up
To her credit, the Church has cleared out the backlog of cases and begun a painful and often bankrupting process of accountability toward the victims and their families. Catholics of good will pray that this helps to facilitate healing and wholeness. The Church has also instituted appropriate oversight and reporting practices for moving into the future.

When Pope John Paul II’s health all but incapacitated him in the final years of his life it was Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Benedict XVI, who began to streamline the process of adjudicating cases of Priests who stood accused and laicizing the guilty. Pope Benedict XVI has apologized repeatedly to victims in private audiences and cried with them. He continues the program of accountability. The first thing Benedict did when he became Pope was to do a visitation of the American Seminaries and restructure the screening process for seminarians.

Perversely, that’s problematic for some.

Piling On
For some, this is not enough. Some want the resignation of this Pope, of Bishops. Many speak of “power sharing” with the laity, a Congregationalist model of ecclesiology. It says something when liberal Jews such as Alan Dershowitz and former NYC Mayor Ed Koch come out swinging in defense of the Pope, accusing the chorus of being unfair and having ulterior and base motive.
Many of those piling on the Pope and accusing him of baseless allegations speak of holding the Church to her own high moral standard.

Really?! Who would have guessed that the New York Times cared so much for Rome maintaining its moral integrity?

For the Times, this might have been about children’s safety at some point, but that point is long since past. The same for the many dissident Catholic groups and individuals who spout the left’s party line. This now has nothing to do with children’s safety. This now is all about tearing apart the Bishops, the Popes, the Curia. This is about demolishing the credibility of the Church to advance the Cultrue of Death without the major opponent: Rome.

What this is certainly not about is the safety of children. If it were, then these same people who are pounding on Benedict would harness their outrage at Rome to the problems faced by children throughout society.

By The Numbers
Consider the following assessment of child sexual abuse in the U.S. vs. U.K. from a well-footnoted article at Nation Master:
United States and Europe
Child sexual abuse occurs frequently in Western society.[88] Prevalence estimates range between 10% in the UK[89] and up to 62% for females and 16% for males in the United States.[90][91] The US Department of Health and Human Services reported 83,600 substantiated reports of sexually abused children in 2005.[92][93] The total number of incidents that were not reported is even larger.[94]

Get the rest of the article and references here.
Another site posts these numbers from the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect:
Incidence: In 2003, there were 78,188 victims of sexual abuse in the U.S. (USDHHS, 2005). This is a rate of 1.2 per 1,000 American children (Douglas & Finklehor, 2005).
In 2003 10% of all confirmed child abuse cases in the U.S. were sexual abuse cases. (USDHHS, 2005).
Between 1992 and 2000 the annual number of substantiated sexual abuse cases dropped from 149,800 to 89,355, a 40% decline. Researchers believe a real decline, as opposed to changes in reporting trends or data collection, is responsible for this drop (Finklehor & Jones, 2004).
Victims: Girls are sexually abused three times more often than boys (Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996).
Perpetrators: More than 90% are men (Douglas & Finklehor, 2005). But, sexual abuse by women may be underreported. About 50% of abusers are acquaintances or friends. About 25% – 33% of child sex abusers are family members and from 7% to 25% are strangers (Douglas & Finklehor, 2005).

The Protestant Churches, as detailed here and here have a problem at least as bad as Rome’s.
If these same people who are pounding on Benedict truly cared for children, they would be outraged at a US Department of Education study by Dr. Charol Shakeshaft, which shows that 9.6% of public school children will be victims of inappropriate sexual conduct sometime during their 12 years of schooling. {*Shakeshaft, C, “Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of the Literature”, U.S. Department of Education, 2004}
Of the ~50 million children in school today, that means 4,500,000 of these children will be victimized from behavior ranging from sexually abusive language to rape. That’s 375,000 children per year! Even if Dr. Shakeshaft’s detailed analysis of the literature led to a 10x overestimation of the problem, that would still leave 37,500 victims per year, or 450,000 over a twelve year period compared to the John Jay study that showed 11,000 credible allegations against Catholic clergy over half a century.

Worse still, the study tells of the common practice of silently moving pedophile teachers around in the same manner the Bishops moved pedophile Priests.

Moreover, the number of cases involving Catholic clergy have slowed dramatically since the 1980′s. Thus has the problem within the clergy been resolving, thanks entirely to the publicity it has received, since the first wave of revelations became public twenty-five years ago.

Too Much Of A Good Thing
The publicity has been a genuine good. But too much of a good thing can be counter-productive, depending on one’s motive.
The argument here is not for less vigilance within the Church. Nor is the argument here an attempted deflection of blame by saying, “What about the other guys who are doing it?”. Those are absurd allegations being made by those who wish to cow common-sense folks into silence in order to keep an exclusive focus on Rome for reasons that have nothing to do with the safety of children.

The argument here is why the outrage is so very selective, so very targeted over a quarter of a century, if ALL children’s safety is truly our concern. By all the objective data it is evident that the Catholic clergy’s contribution to the sexual abuse of minors is far below 1% of the victim count.

Thus, as a body, Catholic Priests are shown by the data to be the LEAST problematic group of any in consideration. Remarkable!

The numbers simply do not add up. Where is the outrage on behalf of the remaining 99% of the victims?! Don’t they matter?

I suspect, after 25 years, that the welfare of all children is NOT at issue with Rome’s most vociferous detractors {the victim’s groups being a strong exception}. Given the numbers presented here, if the scandal in the Church has of itself provoked such outrage, one cannot comprehend what a proportional outrage would look like were the magnitude of the problem in other quarters ever addressed.

Evil always overplays its hand, as it has done here. Most of those who have published wild allegations against the Pope and his predecessor in recent weeks have seen their stories evaporate under scrutiny. But truth has long since taken flight. Tell a lie often enough and people begin to believe it.

As I said at the outset, I’ve earned the right to demand answers to the questions posed here. I mopped up the mess left behind by thousands of adults who sexually savaged the children I cared for at Covenant House. Not one of those children ever named a Priest as a molester, which squares with all of the data mentioned here.

The truth is that the John Jay study shows Catholic clergy, at the worst, to have had no more than 4% of its members involved in this atrocity. That means that 96% of our clergy have NOT been involved.

Can we married people boast the same numbers for our vocation? With 50% of marriages ending in divorce, 40% of child sexual abuse occurring in the home, 9% of school children abused by teachers and staff, we should blush at the thought that we are somehow occupying the moral high ground with respect to the Catholic clergy.

The pedophiles have been exposed and cleared out. The Priests who remain are the men who live their vows with heroic fidelity and are entitled to our gratitude and respect for living lives of selfless service to the rest of us. They certainly have mine.

If we are serious at hunting down pedophiles and keeping children safe, then the data suggest that one not look to the pulpit, but the pews.

http://gerardnadal.com/2010/04/20/healing-in-defense-of-priests/

Friday, April 1, 2011

Welcome Home

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

First Anglican Use Mass in Canada


We reported recently on the Anglican Ordinariate conference which took place near Toronto, Ontario, and which Fr. Christopher Phillips (pastor of San Antonio's Our Lady of the Atonement Anglican Use parish) and Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P. participated in, along with the local ordinary, Archbishop Thomas Collins, who has been asked by Rome to head up the ordinariate efforts in Canada.

Some images and video have been made available from the associated Mass which took place as part of the conference which, incidentally, was the first Anglican use Mass celebrated within Canada -- by "Anglican use" I mean Mass celebrated in accordance with the 'Book of Divine Worship', which is the liturgical book in use as part of the historical Anglican use communities in the United States. The Mass was celebrated by Fr. Christopher Phillips. (As a point of comment; while visiting Boston this past fall, I had the opportunity to attend an Anglican use liturgy in a suburb of Boston, at St. Lawrence Church in Chestnut Hill, MA. It was a beautiful and moving liturgy and only served to re-affirm my belief that the Anglican Ordinariate has a great deal to offer to the liturgical conversation, most particularly to the reform of the reform.)

Here are some of those photos and videos, courtesy of the English Catholic.