Improving the neighborhood

Based on my (limited) knowledge of the differences of these two bishops, I would say the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis should get ready for some positive changes.

Pope Benedict accepts resignation of St. Paul and Minneapolis archbishop

Minneapolis, May 2, 2008 / 11:03 am (CNA).- Today the Holy Father accepted the resignation of Archbishop Harry J. Flynn from the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis in Minnesota. He will be succeeded by Archbishop John C. Neinstedt.

the Arena, the Christians and the lion (lying)

Matthew at CMR has some quotes to note regarding
Archbishop Burke and Saint Louis U. Basketball Coach.

"It's not possible to be a Catholic and hold those positions," Burke said. "When you take a position in a Catholic university, you don't have to embrace everything the Catholic church teaches. But you can't make statements which call into question the identity and mission of the Catholic church...I'm confident it (the university) will deal with the question of a public representative making declarations that are inconsistent with the Catholic faith."[emphasis added]

Sadly Burke was thinking this Catholic University was actually Catholic.

As Matthew points out, this is the the Jesuit school that is not controlled by "religious creed" and, hence:

The school was able to convince the Missouri Supreme Court that they were hardly Catholic at all in order to receive $8 million of taxpayer dollars to build a new arena. Hey look, Judas only got a few silver pieces. The Jesuits got $8 million. Inflation?

Hijacked

Just wondering how many readers out there had their Epiphany hijacked by the US Bishops deciding this would be a good week to foist the "migration week" theme on us? 

Our priest was halfway through a good homily on the readings when he switched gears to the politically motivated-one sided slant on how we are all migrants, and just like the "wise people" the migrants deserve....  I can't remember what came next because it was like those videos you are supposed to watch closely and then Wham! someone jumps into the screen and scares you.  The whole train of though just slammed into the proverbial wall.

First, how lame is it hitching the "migrant week" to the visit of the Magi?  The Magi were traveling to a foreign land to adore the King of Kings, God made incarnate, not trying to subvert the laws and perhaps a whole nation.  And lest anyone forget, the Magi went home when their visas expired.  You could make the case that Herod wasn't exactly friendly to the travelers, but comparing Duncan Hunter or even Tom Tancredo to Herod is quite a reach.

Second, it isn't migration that concerns people.  I am a migrant.  I moved from one part of the country to another.  But I am not an immigrant.

someone who leaves their country or origin to take up permanent residence in another country

Thirdly and most importantly, it was Mass.  And major feast day. Which they chose to hijack for their political purpose.  They are Bishops, and they of all people should know better.

The Science of Consensus

Hard to not be impressed with Cardinal Pell after reading his interview with Catholic World Report.

You are one of very few public figures in this country to express open skepticism about man-made climate change and its alleged long-term effects. What is your reading of the scientific evidence for climate change? What is the basis of your skepticism?

Cardinal Pell: I am certainly skeptical about extravagant claims of impending man-made climatic catastrophes. Scientific debate is not decided by any changing consensus, even if it is endorsed by political parties and public opinion. Climate change both up and down has been occurring, probably since earth first had a climate. [emphasis added]

He seems to know the science behind the scene and better than that, understands what science is.

Cardinal Pell: There are many measures that are good for the environment that we should pursue. We need to be able talk freely about this and about the uncertainties around climate change. Invoking the authority of some scientific experts to shut down debate is not good for science, for the environment, for people here and in the developing world or for the people of tomorrow.

My task as a Christian leader is to engage with reality, to contribute to debate on important issues, to open people's minds, and to point out when the emperor is wearing few or no clothes. I strive to argue rationally towards God the Creator, and reject substitutes, be they pantheist or atheist.

Radical environmentalists are more than up to the task of moralizing their own agenda and imposing it on people through fear.

It is not as if he is advocating the destruction of the environment, much to the contrary.  But within the bounds of Christian responsibility.

Of course, if the locally adverse effects of human excesses, such as various forms of pollution, lead to greater care for the environment, that's all to the good. Humans act out of self-interest in these situations, although in addition Christians have particular responsibilities as custodians of God's creation for today and tomorrow.

Silence is golden

A great story in the Courier Journal of Louisville, KY. And newsworthy too. Archbishop joins abortion protest

[Archbishop] Kurtz, who was installed as the Archdiocese of Louisville's leader in August, stood and knelt while facing the EMW Women's Surgical Center at Second and Market streets for nearly 1½ hours. He spoke only when he gave a blessing that ended the gathering.

Truly a shepherd leading his flock.

via Sarah at the CUF

New (to me)

The CUF, Catholics United for the Faith has a blog, and here is a good topic to introduce it. Iggy’s Top Ten

In honor of St. Ignatius, I will now give a “top ten” list of some of my favorite quotes from this great bishop and martyr.

Make mine wimpy

Probably should be filed under the "Ho-hum another worthless comment by a bishop that has slid into the deep end". But he is just so darn wrong. Were he to challenge people, he would find many are up to the challenge of living a devout life. But offering them warm milk instead of wholesome nourishment keeps them as dependent toddlers.

His thoughts on celibacy are completely backwards. The warm fuzzies of 1960's catechism left the world without the men of courage willing to sacrifice for the sake of the Kingdom. Softening the "rough" edges will further deplete the ranks of those who are called. Priesthood isn't just another job that must change as the market dictates, it is an diving calling.

In a public response to a campaign by Australian Catholic activists to end the celibacy discipline, Bishop Power said that while Vatican leaders are unwilling to reconsider the issue, among "ordinary Catholics" he has found both support and "a sense of urgency" about the need for change.

"Where there is the conviction that the Eucharist is at the heart of Catholic belief and practice, there must be questions asked about disciplinary laws in the Church which have the net effect of denying many Catholics regular access to the Eucharist," the Australian bishop wrote. He said that by limiting priestly ministry to celibate men the Church was in effect restricting access to the Eucharist "because of the scarcity of priests."

Watering down the pablum even more won't raise up good men. Challenge them to be men of service, sacrificing an earthly good for the sake of others. Then we will see results.

And his comment about women's ordination just further shows that he doesn't grasp the nature of the Church or the precious role of shepherd that he has.

A must

This article is a definite must read for anyone, Catholic and otherwise, who is upset, discontent, defending or otherwise concerned about the way the bishops and Pope interact. Why Doesn't the Pope Do Something about "Bad" Bishops? (This Rock: February 2006)

Read the whole article, it isn't very long, but is very thorough. Here are a few highlights.

Misconception #1:
The Pope as CEO

...One reason the Church is different from a corporation is the sacrament of holy orders. When a man is ordained, he is changed in his very being; he is "configured" to Christ as head and shepherd. This new identity is permanent and cannot be removed. Even if a priest is removed from the priesthood ("defrocked"), he remains a priest, sacramentally speaking, so a priest or bishop can’t be fired in the sense that a corporate employee can.

A department head or vice-president of a corporation has authority by delegation: his authority is given from the next higher level of the organization and ultimately comes from the president, CEO, or board of directors. The department head has authority only insofar as it is "borrowed" from above; it does not belong to him.

But this is not the case regarding the Church. The bishop enjoys the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders (cf. Lumen Gentium 26) and as such is head of the local Church, the diocese. A bishop’s authority within his diocese does not operate by delegation: The bishop is not merely exercising a power "borrowed" from the pope. Canon 381 of the Code of Canon Law states: "In the diocese entrusted to his care, the diocesan bishop has all the ordinary, proper, and immediate power required for the exercise of his pastoral office."

So don't expect any mergers or acquisitions soon.

Misconception #2:
The Bishop as Manager

...But the Church sees the bishop as the father of his diocese. In the Second Vatican Council’s document on bishops, Christus Dominus, the Church, "the Lord’s flock," is compared to a "family of which the bishop is the father" (CD 28). Elsewhere, the bishop’s office is defined as "father and pastor" (CD 16). This identification of the bishop as father goes back to the earliest Church Fathers, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 115), who, in his Letter to the Trallians, described the bishop as "the image of God the Father."

... when we say that the Church is a family, we mean it quite literally. The Church is not a reflection of the reality that is "family"—quite the opposite. The family is a reflection of the reality that is the Church. We must always bear in mind that spiritual realities are more real, not less real, than physical or natural realities. In Christ we are more truly connected, more truly in communion with people than we are with our own family members.

So if in Christ the Church is truly a family, then the bishop is truly a father to his flock. Now think about fatherhood for a moment: Is a father’s identity dependent on how well he fulfills it? Not really. A father is a father, almost regardless of how well he fulfills his responsibilities. We might say that John is a better father than Sam, but we don’t say that Sam is therefore not a father. There are some very good fathers; there are the majority of fathers who muddle along doing the best they can; and, unfortunately, there are a few bad fathers out there.

Now, in the natural sphere, a father has to be very bad indeed before he is relieved of his office. Mere incompetence is insufficient. While we may look at him as a sad case, most reasonable people wouldn’t say that the father who lets the house get run down or who doesn’t effectively discipline his children should be removed from his family. No, in order to justify separating a father from his family, we require substantial evidence of actual abuse or neglect. The father of a family is so integral to its identity that before removing him we have to be sure he is actually causing harm to the family. That determination is made in a court of law, with evidence and witnesses, and the father has an opportunity to defend himself. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, removing the father from his family is not so much like firing a bad manager as it is like amputating a limb from one’s body: It’s justifiable only under the direst circumstances.

And as a father, we owe him our respect. For even the son of a lousy father is bound by the 4th commandment to recognize the father derives his authority from God the Father.

The Danger of Schism

The third reason popes are reluctant to depose bishops is the danger of schism. Whenever a bishop is removed, there is at least the possibility that he may elect to leave the Church altogether and set up on his own church, taking many of the faithful with him. Going back to our Lord’s prayer that "they all be one" (John 17:20–21), the Church regards schism as great evil and precipitating or fomenting schism as a grievous sin. Ignatius, in his Letter to the Smyrneans, wrote "Shun divisions as the beginning of evils." As long as people are kept within the Church, even tenuously, there is the possibility of correction and conversion. But if they depart, they may be lost for good.

And the larger the dissenting element, the more prevalent the heterodoxy, the more grave the danger. Msgr. George Kelly, in his book The Crisis of Authority, argued that, because dissent had become so widespread, the danger of schism was very real in the United States in the 1970s and ‘80s. Any papal "crackdown" against dissent, he argued, likely would have led to the separation of a large body of the faithful from communion with Rome. And so John Paul II seems to have adopted a "gradualist" approach: He largely avoided direct confrontation, save in the realm of ideas. He taught, corrected, and exhorted his brother bishops, and all of the faithful, to holiness and to the embrace of the fullness of the faith.

The gradualist approach may turn out to have been a mistake, but I don’t think so. The majority of episcopal appointments under John Paul II have been very good, even outstanding. Bishops of unquestioned orthodoxy, such as Raymond Burke of St. Louis and Charles Chaput of Denver, are now to be found in many of the major U.S. sees. And in a host of smaller sees one can find many excellent young bishops who are zealous and courageous exponents of the faith.

So much to be optimistic about with our Church. But we must avoid the temptation to shoot our generals in the back.

USCCB steps up

It won't make much difference to the almost-Catholic Politicians, but it is nice to see the USCCB taking their role as shepherds seriously. It isn't the smack-down some want, but it is a response and it includes Catholic teaching.

USCCB Responds To 18 Democrats Critical Of Pope

In an unfortunate May 10 statement, 18 of the 88 Catholic Democrats in
the U.S. House of Representatives criticized Pope Benedict XVI’s
remarks concerning Mexican lawmakers legalizing abortion. The
Representatives’ statement misrepresents the Holy Father’s
remarks and implies that the Church does not have a right to voice its
teaching in the public square.

The Holy See has made clear that neither the Mexican bishops nor the
Holy Father have excommunicated any legislator. Rather, the Holy See
reiterated longstanding Church teaching that anyone who freely and
knowingly commits a serious wrong, that is, a mortal sin, should not
approach the Eucharist until going to confession.

“The Catholic Church proclaims that human life is sacred and that
the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision of
society.” (United States Catechism for Adults, p. 442)
Consequently, every Catholic is obliged to respect human life, from
conception until natural death.

To suggest that the Church should not clearly voice its teaching and
apply it in a pluralistic society is to attack freedom of speech and
freedom of religion. The Catholic Church always will and must speak out
against the destruction of innocent unborn children. The right to do so
is guaranteed by the Constitution that all legislators are elected to
uphold. Speaking and acting against abortion is not a matter of
partisan politics. It is a matter of life and death.

The bishops urge all Catholics, especially those who hold positions of
public responsibility, to educate themselves about the teaching of the
Church, and to seek pastoral advice so that they can make informed
decisions with consistency and integrity.[emphasis added]

St. Maximilian Kolbe would be proud

Dom has a great point here.

Bishops, the Gospel, and the Internet age * Bettnet.com

I think a lot more can be done if only there is the will to do it and the expertise to pull it off. The great thing about the new media is that the cost to do it is low. How much are you paying for your blog? Not as much as, say, a daily newspaper is to print it’s daily edition.
While you can’t replace the face-to-face encounter in spreading the Gospel and sharing the life in Christ, these new media can be a very effective means for starting that process. And we’ve only just begun to scratch the surface of what can be done.

It isn't just up to the bishops anymore to evangelize people where they are at. The wealth of information available on the internet is a boon to the truthseeker.

Not that everything you read on the internet (or newspaper) is true, but being informed has never been easier. The more information available, the more likely people will find the truth. In the MSM era, they could control what people talked about. As Bear-i-tone mentioned some time back, they don't have to control what people think as long as they control what they think about.

And I am encouraged by the likes of Archbishop Chaput of Denver. He has been using the internet to release his actual speeches rather than relying on the print and TV media to "quote" him and give a summary according to their skview.

And take the very recent comments from the Pope on communion and politicians. Many skilled writers stepped right up and dissected the nuance and meaning, so a Catholic can be informed even before the 6:00 news gives their slanted soundbit.

Pushing back

Give the bishops this, they have a limit.

Having been pushed around and barely a few responding to the false teacher, they finally reached the limit. They were pushed far enough that the had to take a stand and did so as a group.

US bishops offer ‘public correction’ of contraception, abortion, marriage pamphlets

The Committee on Doctrine of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has declared that pamphlets published by Professor Daniel Maguire of theology at Marquette University on contraception, abortion, and same-sex marriage, “do not present authentic Catholic teaching.”

“The views about contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage, as well as the very nature of Church teaching and its authoritative character, cross the legitimate lines of theological reflection and simply enter into the area of false teaching,” the doctrine committee said.

“Such mistaken views should not be confused with the moral teaching of the Catholic Church.”

No wishy-washy terms. Just the truth.

Maguire sent two pamphlets to all Catholic U.S. bishops on June 19. One is entitled “The Moderate Roman Catholic Position on Contraception and Abortion.” The other is “A Catholic Defense of Same-Sex Marriage.”

In a statement issued by the committee last week, the bishops said it was important to “offer a public correction of the erroneous views” in the pamphlets since it is apparent Maguire went to considerable efforts to give his views wide distribution.

Seems as though he wanted a confrontation. Was Satan getting this bold, or is this guy just crying out for correction? Maguire's pamphlets are a good synopsis of all the errors used to promote contraception, abortion and homosexuality as acceptable practices.

In his pamphlets, Maguire argues that “there is no one position” on contraception, abortion, homosexual acts and same-sex marriage that can be called “Catholic.” He pursues his argument, stating that “there is no authentic Church teaching [on these issues] that is binding on all members of the Catholic Church.”

If he truly believes there is "no one position", then it is evident he has read "no one" definitive writings on the matter. The popes and the councils have been very clear. Church teaching and the Bible are very clear.

And now we can add the US Bishops to that list of being very clear.

Archbiship Chaput: We need to stop pornography, now

Archbishop Chaput weighs in on General Pace's comments and on the deeper problem, pornography.

Archbishop's column

A friend recently quipped to me that if Americans were as good at the “war on terror” as we are in our “war on common sense,” the world would be a much safer place. He was talking about our country’s increasingly confused attitudes toward sex.
Last week offered a good example. In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, said that “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well-served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”

Note that Pace did not say that, “homosexual persons are evil.” He said that homosexual acts are wrong. And of course he’s right. We might question the general’s choice to comment in the context he did, but not his content. He simply stated the Western moral tradition. We should respect his courage for saying it. Every human being has an inalienable dignity as an image of God. But as part of that dignity, we also have free will, and our choices — our behaviors — create wholeness or havoc around us, depending on their moral content.

Our sexual behavior is never merely a “private” matter. Human sexuality is deeply linked to issues of identity, fertility and new life. Our sexual behavior always has social implications because it directly or indirectly impacts others. Therefore it helps shape the wider culture. This is not a uniquely Christian point of view. Most Americans clearly agree with Gen. Pace. The only thing strange about his remarks was the theatrical wave of shock they generated from critics. In fact, with the good exception of Sen. Sam Brownback and some others, many members of Congress scrambled to criticize Gen. Pace — despite the moral beliefs of the people who elected them.

That is because General Pace dared to smash the golden calf. None of the politicians were going to "face" the wrath of idolaters in the next elections. Even if it was as minor as not setting themselves apart from this "hate crime".

Pornography is never “innocent entertainment,” no matter how private it might seem. It turns human beings into objects. It coarsens our appetites. It darkens our ability to see real human beauty. It creates impossible expectations about sexual intimacy. It kills enduring romance and friendship between the sexes. And ultimately it’s a lie and a cheat. Pornography is a cheap, quick, empty copy of the real thing — the real joy of sexual intimacy shared by a man and woman who have joined their lives in a loving marriage.

Show me a man that hasn't tasted the sting of this coarsening, this destruction of purity; and I will show you am man that is very happy in his vocation. Sin can be forgiven. Confession is paramount, counseling is important and honesty with self and others is critical; but even then, the stain of temptation will remain.

In recent months, two Catholic bishops have begun some extraordinary work against pornography in their Midwest dioceses: Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo., and Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan.

Bishop Finn’s excellent pastoral letter, “Blessed Are the Pure in Heart: The Dignity of the Human Person and the Dangers of Pornography,” has a wealth of good information about the scope of pornography, the damage it does and many practical tips to fighting it in our homes. Archbishop Naumann’s anti-pornography initiative, “As for Me and My House, We Will Serve the Lord,” includes a DVD and workbook with valuable resources for fighting pornography, teaching chastity and wholesome sexuality, and helping others who have been hurt by pornography addiction.

We can’t do much to fix the sexual confusion at the top of our society, beyond writing to our elected officials and demanding candidates who will advance our convictions when the time comes to vote. But we can do a lot about the poison in our homes and local communities. Pornography is poison. It should be controlled like any other toxic waste. And don’t be fooled. This isn’t “censorship.” It’s a matter of public health and common sense.

via the Curt Jester

Mininstry of reconciliation

A side note in today's Epistle from 2 Cor 5:17-21

And all this is from God,
who has reconciled us to himself through Christ
and given us the ministry of reconciliation.
namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ,
not counting their trespasses against them
and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
So we are ambassadors for Christ,
as if God were appealing through us.
We implore you on behalf of Christ,
be reconciled to God.
For our sake he made him to be sin who did not know sin,
so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

Consider who the "we" refers to in those two lines. Given the "we implore you", I would say this could be St. Paul and the other Apostles. There is some aspects of the "Ministry of Reconciliation" in this reading. It isn't a proof text that can be taken out of context and tortured to say whatever we want, but in light of Sacrament of Reconciliation, we see that the Apostles (and the bishops in their place) are ambassadors for Christ just as they are in the confessional.

If that don't say it all

Pretty much sums up the useless thought of so many "theologians" of today.

Jesus was no socialist, guru, or hippie, but rather the Son of God, says Venezuelan bishop

In an article published this week Bishop Mario Moronta of San Cristobal warned against misinterpreting the person of Jesus as “a Socialist,” a “guru,” or “hippie” and encouraged the faithful to constantly recall that Jesus is Lord, the Son of God.

“The person of Jesus, with his actions and teachings, has always inspired amazement and admiration in many, as well as questioning and even rejection in others,” the bishop wrote in an article for the diocesan newspaper.

“In modern times as well,” Bishop Moronta said, “the question about Jesus remains. The answer given is in accord with those who do the asking: Some have claimed he is an alien who has come from who knows what planet or galaxy in order to carry out a mission. Some have claimed he is a kind of ‘guru’ who, after his death in Israel, supposedly traveled to the Far East to achieve complete wisdom. Some claim he is a great teacher of wisdom. There is even no lack of those who would say he is a myth or an invention of the first Christians,” the bishop wrote.

“In our Latin American continent, there have always been attempts to answer the troubling question about Him,” he continued. “He has been identified as a ‘revolutionary,’ a ‘guerrilla,’ to the point that he has been depicted in paintings crucified on a cross of rifles. In our own national debate, he has been presented as a ‘Socialist.’”

But alas, the Alpha and the Omega is not to be co-opted for whatever the latest political fad is.