This is priceless!

I have always said that it is the internecine hatred amongst "traditionalists" themselves that prove that they are not "of God." And, happily, it also dooms their movement to failure. The following attack against Michael Matt illustrates the fact perfectly. Matt is the editor of The Remnant, a radical right wing "Catholic" newspaper. His family founded The Wanderer, but it became too liberal (I swear I am not making this up!)for his father, who left and started The Remnant in 1967. In a tribute to his father Matt brags how he, his 8 siblings and their spouses, children, and grandchildren, have all attending nothing but the Tridentine Mass. And he routinely denounces all the right persons and causes. Yet, there is always someone more orthodox, more faithful, more traditional, to condemn him. "They will know they are Christians by their love." NOT!
"By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them"
Michael Matt Editor of The Remnant Affirms His Ecumenical Involvement

[Note: The following information was first posted on In Today's Catholic World's website on 11/14/05 as a Bullet Point Brief (BPB #5) - TCW]

Michael Matt Editor of The Remnant Affirms His Ecumenical Involvement: It was confirmed in a phone conversation with Michael Matt editor of The Remnant and with myself David Hobson, editor of this Catholic news service, In Today’s Catholic World, that he [Michael Matt] plays on a well organized Ecumenical softball league, that is officially and blasphemously called, "The *Church League". The "Church" League consists of Lutherans, Novus Ordo "Catholics", Protestant Pentecostalists, such as the like that call themselves "The Vineyard", Novus Ordo False Traditionalists (this is Michael Matt's team where he plays outfield) and also Jews with full braids from perfidious Synagogues!

Again, the official name of this league that Michael Matt Editor of The Remnant has been a fee paying member of for at least two years is officially called The "Church" League. I, David Hobson confronted Matt with the fact that it is an error and a total scandal to use the holy word, Church, to describe this league and he, (Matt) disagreed, as he still is a member of this ecumenical mob that refuses to play hardball.

*Note from Editor: If words like "Church" are of such little consequence then why does this full-time Journalist Matt, who claims to be Catholic, write? Words absolutely do matter, and this is precisely where the battle ground has always been fought. There is not a more sacred word than the word Church, as The Church is Christ's One and Only Undefiled Spouse that He willingly and lovingly gave his last drop of blood, and last beat of His broken heart to save (its members) from eternal suffering and separation from Himself. No one can support these attackers of the Catholic Church (i.e. False "Catholic" Journalists like Michael Matt and their vile pulp) without sin.

The original article can be found here complete with a picture of an unidentified player in "pink hat and tight black pants. (OMG! We know what that means!)

Reverence

Reverence. The world is surely lacking in it these days. Anyone "with eyes to see" can recognize that fact. I often find myself bemoaning the lack of reverence. What is the cause of the terrible irreverence in the world today? I am not sure that I can give a meaningful answer to that question. I can, however, say what is not to blame. Out in the blogosphere I frequently encounter the assertion that the demise of the Tridentine Mass is to blame for the rampant irreverence in society today. Hogwash! I do not believe for one moment that all would be well in our world if the Second Vatican Council had never happened. The world experienced a seismic shift - culturally, socially, politically - beginning in the 1960s. The irreverence so characteristic of this age has its roots in that shift. To somehow think that the Church could have escaped all that by burying its head in the Tridentine sands is to live in a fantasy land.

With that being said I believe that it is incumbent upon all of us to work to restore a sense of reverence, especially in our worship. It is easy to sit back and complain. But what are we concretely doing to remedy the situation? I don't for one moment accept the ridiculous assertion that the Novus Ordo is irreverent. Can it be celebrated irreverently? Of course! But so could the Tridentine Mass. It is just that most of what happened there was hidden from the congregation. A wise DRE once told me that the young people today who are into the "old Mass" are experiencing it being said by priest who really want to do it and aren't experiencing "how it use to be" with so many priests perfunctorily rushing through it. Those of us who preside at the altar today should make every effort to ensure that the celebration is reverent. Then hopefully our people will recover a sense of reverence in their own lives.

Other views

I came across two very interesting articles toady dealing with the question of priestly celibacy. A strong endorsement of a married clergy is offered by the grandson of a Ukrainian Orthodox priest. A passionate argument against is presented by the wife of a former protestant minister (now a Catholic layman). I do not imply total agreement with either article by including them here. I simply felt that since both have experience with the issue their insights might be more valuable than my mindless babble.

War

Without getting into the politics surrounding the war in Iraq I want to make one simple observation. It amazes me how the "Religious Right" (by which I mean Evangelical Christians and their Catholic "wannabe fundy" cohorts) have made this war such a religious issue. Even to the point, in some instances, of making support for it a litmus test of authentic Christianity. Something seems amiss when so-called Christians are the loudest, most zealous voices crying out in support of a war that is destroying Christianity in Iraq. For the Evangelicals I doubt there is a conflict; after all, the eastern-rite Catholics and the Assyrian Ancient Church of the East faithful, who make up the bulk of the Christian community there, aren't in their minds real followers of Christ anyway.

The Pharisee and "prayer"

"The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself ..."

In reading today's Gospel it was this line that immediately caught my attention. The main point of Jesus' parable is so obvious that we can easily overlook this very powerful line. The pharisee doesn't pray at all; he merely recites to himself a catalog of his own imagined virtues. Pray, by definition, is not talking to oneself, it is conversation with God. I need to continually ask myself whether I am truly or praying, or merely talking to myself.

Celibacy part trois

I have finally read the comments to the two posts on celibacy this week. (I don't want to dwell on that particular subject to the point that it seem to be the main focus of this blog.)

I thank everyone who took the time to respond and I recommend that all concerned with this issue take the time to read the comments. All are thoughtful and raise valid issues, pro and con. Any reasonable person realizes that there is no single solution to the shortage of vocations. And while I may favor abandoning mandatory celibacy I am not fool enough to believe that by simply eliminating that requirement we will have all the priests we need.

As many noted in their comments above all what is needed is prayer. Prayer for priests. Prayer for vocations. Prayer for the Church.

Autumn

A Saturday without a funeral, a wedding, appointments, nothing until confessions and Mass! I don't know what I will do with myself. Perhaps I will catch up on my reading.

I love this time of year. It has cooled off considerably from a few days ago; the autumn air feels great. When the temperature goes up a few more degrees (still a little bit of frost in the shade yet) I might head out for a long walk. A quiet walk, praying the rosary as I go, on a nice fall day does wonders for the mind, the body, and the soul!

More thoughts on Elizabeth

I guess I am too much of an idealist but what really has been on my mind and bothering me since I watched Elizabeth yesterday is the fact that anyone should have been punished by death for their faith. Whether it was protestants killing Catholics or Catholics killing protestants it just seems so wrong to me. Is that really what Jesus wanted us to do in defense of the Truth? Shouldn't belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God come to save humanity unite us even when our particular interpretations of what that means differ? Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. And all of us as Christians accept Him. Is He as worried about our theological differences as we are?

I am not trying to say that such things are unimportant. I am not trying to suggest that there isn't "The" Truth. I just wonder if we may have allowed ourselves to become so preoccupied with the differences that we forget the overriding commonality we share in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Maybe I am nothing but an evil heretic. But I just have trouble thinking that God wastes His time watching out for our "orthodoxy"; I'd rather believe that He is most concerned about whether we are truly loving one another as His Son taught. I know that way-out traditionalists would condemn someone to hell for failure to believe each and every doctrine of the faith. I can't buy a God like that though. Take the notion of Purgatory, for instance. I believe firmly in it. To me it makes wonderful intellectual sense; it seems to befit the dignity of an all-merciful God. But I don't for a moment think that God would send someone to hell for not buying into the idea. I rather believe that such a person will quickly change their tune when they spend some time there themselves. It is hard to deny a reality in which one finds oneself resident!

In some people's eyes that would make me a manifest heretic I guess. But I don't care about what others think. To me, how God views things is paramount. And I don't think He's ready to condemn me. At least not for this.

Elizabeth Regina

This evening I saw the movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age. While it wasn't the best of movies I failed to see in it the anti-Catholicism which some have claimed. Anything derogatory towards Catholicism seemed to me simply to reflect the attitude of the 16th century English, from whose vantage point the story is told. I certainly find anti-Catholicism to be terribly offensive. And sadly it does seem to be the last "acceptable" prejudice. However, I think we do ourselves more harm than good when we see imagine anti-Catholic bigotry everywhere we look. It reminds me of the boy who cried wolf.

Funerals

I love funerals like the one this morning. The kind where the survivors feel compelled to keep telling you that they are "no longer Catholic" and ask for good protestant hymns like "Amazing Grace" and "How Great Thou Art." (Not that I have anything against those classics; I like them both.) I just tell the organist to throw in a Marian hymn as well. And I make sure that I wear my Our Lady of Guadalupe stole to the cemetery.

Evil computers!

Pardon the French, but I have had one hell of a day. My laptop got infected a while back and today it finally stopped working. I am not particularly computer literate but I managed to figure out how to reinstall windows and start all over. Unfortunately in the process I didn't get rid of the infected version of windows and the new version is running on a partition of the hard drive only 3.5 gigabytes in size. So the evil machine is running quite smoothly at the moment but soon I will be out of space. perhaps tomorrow I will be able to figure out how to remedy this. At the moment I am just relieved that it is working!

Celibacy part deux

I don't not know the laws of etiquette here in blogland and I don't know what is kosher and what is not. But from time to time I will repost as a stand-alone post something I wrote in answer to a comment on a previous post. Here follows the first such, in response a well thought-out comment disagreeing with my Celibacy posting:

I used to think a lot more along the lines of what you said here. But time has a way of changing one's perspective. Seeing good priests leave because they no longer want to "be alone," hearing countless young men say they would definitely consider the priesthood "if they could marry," and facing the prospect of being worked to death as the corps of priests shrink has caused my view to evolve over the past several years.

From what I see, many men feel quite isolated out there. The support of the parish community doesn't necessarily alleviate the sense of loneliness. Certainly a deep prayer life is necessary (without that no one would last) but even very devoted, prayerful men sometimes "throw in the towel."

Others try to deal with their loneliness in quite unhealthy ways. Alcohol is all too often abused. Some priests become obsessed with their "toys" and other material possessions. And celibacy in many instances isn't being lived. It isn't unusual for a man, be he gay or straight, to at some point fail in that department. Some have longterm, "secret" relationships. And in some parts of the world celibacy is joke; it is regularly violated and officialdom just looks the other way.

I am not implying that there aren't good men living celibate lives, fulfilled in their vocation. These would be the ones who have been authentically called to the celibate life by God. But there are many who, based on the evidence at least, appear not to have been truly called.

My chief concern here is that things are quickly reaching a crisis stage. In many Diocese a large "bubble" of priests is rapidly approaching retirement age. In a few years the Catholic landscape in many places is going to look startlingly different. And I can imagine a snowball effect; there could be guys who leave simply because they can't deal with the pressures that are going to placed upon them, further exacerbating an already bad situation.

I really believe the Church has to look honestly at this question.

Celibacy

As the wind whipped the leaves around the parking lot this morning on my walk over from Mass I found myself reflected on all the controversy "whipped up" in the church these past years by incidents all related, one way or another, to celibacy. I do not wish to suggest that all the scandals we have experienced are the direct result of clerical celibacy; I do, however, believe that many of these sexual scandals are exacerbated by the culture of celibacy. Don't get me wrong. I have great respect for the spiritual discipline of celibacy. But more and more I question whether making it mandatory for diocesan priests is the wisest policy.

Personally I think that Eastern Christianity has it right. Mandatory celibacy is the province of the monastic life, where it is by definition necessary. The parish clergy, for the most part, is married. Bishops are chosen from the monastics and thus are celibate. The reasons for this arrangement make abundant sense. In the monastery one has a built-in "family," a ready-made support network. In the parish, the priest is permitted the support of a wife and family.

Are there problems in Churches with a married clergy? Certainly! Would making celibacy optional solve all the pressing problems of the Catholic Church? Most assuredly not! But I can't help but think that it would make a difference.

More thoughts ...

... on Sunday's Scriptures.

Next time your friendly neighborhood fundy comes around spouting their sola scriptura nonsense ask them to show you the scriptural basis for that dogma. They will inevitably quote Paul's Second Letter to Timothy: "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (3:16-17). That's all well and good. But nowhere does that verse say that everything we believe must be spelled out in the Bible. The truth of the matter is that we will not find such a statement anywhere in the Bible. And that my friends, is a huge problem for the sola scriptura crowd. What we are left with is a big paradox: If one of my foundational beliefs is that everything I believe must be in the Scriptures, but nowhere in the Scriptures does it tell me that everything I believe has to be in the Scriptures, it then follows (using basic logic) that the dogma of sola scriptura violates itself!

Proclaim the Word

"Proclaim the Word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient."

These words of Paul to Timothy really struck me as I reflected on today's Scripture readings and prepared my homily. In a simple phrase the Apostle to the gentiles sums up our baptismal call, namely, to proclaim the word, the Good News, of the God-made-flesh Jesus Christ. Most Christians aren't called to preach this in the technical sense of standing up before a congregation Sunday after Sunday expounding the Sacred Scriptures. But all are called to proclaim the word by the witness of their lives. And when you boil it down to essentials, the word, the Good News, to be proclaimed is love. Thus we are each called to act with love towards others whether it is convenient or inconvenient. That's the bottom line. That, in its essence, is what it means to be a Christian. (Since some people seem almost hostile to the idea of the priest talking about love, like it is some dirty wordy from the Godforsaken 70s, let me make it clear that by "love" I don't mean simply warm fuzzies. I mean the real deal shown to us by Christ, above all when He willingly sacrificed Himself on Calvary.)

Confronted with such a herculean task - loving at all times in all things - we are tempted to cry out "Impossible!" However, we are instructed by the example of Moses in First Reading of today's Mass. He is given a nearly impossible task, being told by God to keep his arms raised for the duration of the battle with the Amalekites. He tries to go it alone for a while, but eventually his strength fails, his arms sag, and the battle turns against Israel. Note what he does at this point. He seeks the help of others. He has Aaron and Hur support his arms until the battle is won. Likewise in fulfilling our baptismal call to "proclaim the word" we cannot go it alone. We need the support of others. And so week in and week out we gather together to be supported first and foremost by the Lord who pours Himself out in Eucharist. But also to be supported by our brothers and sisters who join together with us. In gathering together we see that we are not in this alone. And that with the help and support of others we can indeed persist, no matter how inconvenient the task may become.

Come now Monsignor!

Came across this when googling to see if there was anything new on the Msgr. Stenico front:

ROME -- A high profile Vatican cleric suspended after he was shown on television making advances to a young man allegedly had a list of homosexual priests and bishops in the Roman Catholic Church's governing body, Italy's Panorama weekly reported Friday.

Father Tommaso Stenico, 60, had "a detailed dossier" of all the homosexual clerics at Vatican "with a list of names and circumstances implicating a certain number of priests and even bishops working at the Curia," Ignazio Ingrao, reporter for the conservative news weekly said.

Stenico also sent his superior Cardinal Claudio Hummes a report denouncing the moral degradation within the Curia, which could make the Vatican "tremble," Ingrao said.

According to Panorama, Stenico, who also worked for a Catholic television station Telepace and owns a white BMW car, also drew up the list out of resentment at having waited so long to be named a bishop.

The thing that really bothers me about this is that he supposedly drew up this list out of "resentment" at having to wait to be named a Bishop. People are so worried about gays in high places. I'm much more concerned about "climbers" like this (if indeed there is truth to the story) who use the Church as nothing but a vehicle for their own aggrandizement.

Bully?

Wow. I'm thinking Cavey must have been a big bully when he was in school. He likes to rip apart everyone else but he sure doesn't like any criticism directed his way! He left this comment today; I thought it deserved its own post:

Chuckie,
As I've already stated, you're a deceptive liar. you're just a fraud.... and now the whole world knows it.

You hide behind your alias claiming violence to be visited upon you, but the whole while, so you can take pot-shots at men such as Abp Ranjith. C'mon, Chuckie, be a man. Get those comments you made about Abp Ranjith and print them out, then have them published in your diocesan newspaper.

But of course, that'll never happen. You being the gutless punk that you are.

There are a number of priests who blog and proudly display their identities... but you won't. Not only does that make you a liar and a fraud, that makes you a coward. And the great thing about all this, Chuckie... we both know it's true.

How's that for a dose of the truth?

For those who do not know the Archbishop Ranjith story, here it is in a nutshell: The dear caveman had posted a quote from Rajinth (the number two man in the Congregation for Diving Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) in which the archbishop seemed to suggest that the Tridentine Mass would fill our seminaries and churches. I commented that the good archbishop was living in "Fantasyland" if he thought that.

Now a normal person would realize that I had merely offered my personal opinion of the archbishop's statement and had not launched an attack against his archiepiscopal person. And I would have no problem in sending that to any Diocesan newspaper. Despite Cavey's delusions, any sane person recognizes that the entire weight of the Holy Office isn't going to be brought to bear on a me for expressing my opinion.

The funny thing is that Cavey feels free to say quite vile things about any hierarch with whom he disagrees. And as far as I can tell he is "hiding" behind a pseudonym. But I guess that's all right for him!

Thanks for the dialog Cavey. I'm really enjoying it! And may God bless you.

Fun, Fun, Fun

Just got back from talking to the parents at our Sacramental Prep session for Penance. I "hit them between the eyes" with the fact that they need to be practicing the faith themselves. (Read: going to Mass every Sunday.) I think I did it with just enough humor, though, so as not to come across as lecturing them. Even in my desire to "tell them like it is" I realize that lecturing them is going to get me nowhere. I can only pray that my approach reached someone.

Next it is a memorial Mass for a guy who died last week. Then a wedding in a parish forty minutes from here. Back here for confession and the anticipated Sunday Mass. Finally back out for the wedding reception. Then maybe (if it isn't too late) meeting with one of my spiritual directees. A full and fun day indeed!

Fraternal Twins

Back when I was taking some PolySci classes in college I realized that the political spectrum is not a straight line at all; rather it is a circle. Go far enough in either direction and you'll see that the extremes meld into one. The poster children for fascism - the Nazis - called their political organ Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (the National Socialist German Workers' Party). I always found it telling that they used two communist buzz words - socialist and workers' - in that title.

In many ways the situation in the church today bears out the truth of this observation. In the final analysis both the far right and the far are equally unfaithful to the Church. Both groups have abandoned the authentic Magisterium of the Church in favor of their own personal opinions and preferences. Thus both "ends" of the spectrum end up being quite similar, fraternal twins one might say.

As I "attack" the far right for their intolerance I think it only fair that I note that those on the far left are the most intolerant of all. And their sin is far greater because they preach tolerance to everyone else. At least the rightists have the decency to make clear that they have no use for tolerance whatsoever!

Bad news!

My heart has been cut to the quick. My despair knows no bounds. Life is no longer worth living. I have been BANNED from the Caveman's Lair! Lord take home NOW! I can't bear the pain.

Vir Speluncae Catholicus said...

Chuckie,

A priest friend of mine checked a publication called "The Kennedy something-or-other" that lists every single priest in the United Staes.
Guess what? These isn't a "Fr. Charles Ledderer" listed.

That makes you a deceptive liar. As I've stated before, you're just a fraud.... and now the whole world knows it.

Know that I will not allow you to use this blog as a soapbox for you to sprew forth your garage.

All further comments from you will be deleted without even so much as being read.

You're nothing more than a miserable wretch who masqurades behind the Roman Collar of a Catholic priest. *shaking head in disgust*

Wow. I wonder what "garage" I was spewing forth? Not quite sure how I'd even go about that. Garages tend to be really big!

As to identity perhaps the Caveman could have considered the possibility that I am a priest but writing pseudonymously. Dealing with such a hateful lot I'd fear for my safety if I posted under my real name. After all, the Cavemen does brags a lot about guns and such. And in fairness, I can't find his real name anywhere either.

BTW Cavey, it is called the Kennedy Directory.

I LOVE this guy!

Another great posting from The Roving Medievalist:

A Political Rant

Have a look at THIS and THIS. It seems some of the leaders of the "Religious Right" want to support a third party, since it appears Giuliani will win the Republican nomination. In other words, they want to hand the Presidency to Hillary Clinton, on a silver platter.
I'm sick to death of the political bullshit I've ignored in the political naivete of "Catholic" blogging.
First, the worst mistake the pro-life cause, which I support, made was allowing itself to be led by loony Evangelicals. It wasn't easy to support back when nutcases were blowing up clinics and shooting doctors and it's not easy now, with some of the baggage that's being attached. Who suffers from this? The children who die because the cause is ineptly led.
Second, the next worst mistake was allowing the cause to be made a partisan issue, which could easily have been avoided. There are a hell of a lot of pro-life Democrats, and ( Yes, hard as it may be to get through your thick skulls. ) pro-life liberals. The pro-life cause was hijacked by political opportunists for the advancement of one party. That party, in case you haven't noticed, is sick of the Evangelical buffoons and is distancing itself from them. Since most Republican politicians, in their personal lives, show the morals of polecats, the fact that the pro-life position isn't being advanced shouldn't be surprising.
And, for crying out loud! The pro-life cause needs to learn PR 101. NO MALE SPOKESMEN! Get women to do it. They're the ones who need to present the case publicly.

New favorite blog

I think I found a new favorite blog, The Roving Medievalist. Biting commentary combined with beautiful pictures of medieval architecture (mainly ecclesiastical). Having a great love for architecture myself (almost went that way in college)I am enjoying the beautiful photography. But it is the "no holds barred" writing that will keep me coming back. Like this entry from Monday:

Threshold of Crap Tolerance

That's what Daniel Patrick Moynihan would call what I've reached. I'm beginning to like the freedom it brings. The odd part is the fact that it's making me both more and less tolerant.
I'm more tolerant of...
1. Liberal and moderate Catholics, who, except for the full scale spirit of VII types have a damn sight more respect for the Church than the yapping pseudo-conservatives.
2. Non-Christian religions.
3. Democratic politicians, who may not have the issues perfect but who usually show a lot more evidence of having "family values" in their own families than their multiple-divorce opponents.
Good for them!
I'm becoming less tolerant of ...
1."Traditionalist" Catholics, in America, ( The situation is completely different in Britain. ) who are, almost without exception, pompous asses who are more "we are church" than the "we are church" people.
2. The yapping, whining, bitching, and moaning of the blogosphere.
3. "Faithful" young priests who have the theology down-pat but are more concerned with words than actions.
F**k 'em all!

Feast of St. Luke

From today's Office of Readings:

Beloved brothers, our Lord and Savior sometimes gives us instruction by words and sometimes by actions. His very deeds are our commands; and whenever he acts silently he is teaching us what we should do. For example, he sends his disciples out to preach two by two, because the precept of charity is twofold-love of God and of one’s neighbour.

The Lord sends his disciples out to preach in two’s in order to teach us silently that whoever fails in charity toward his neighbor should by no means take upon himself the office of preaching. (St. Gregory the Great, Homily 17)

Hmmm. Many out here in the blogosphere preaching away. And quite a few of these seem incapable of demonstrating the slightest bit of charity toward their neighbor. Sancte Luca, ora pro eis!

Caveman Comedy!

I was subjected to some abuse on The Lair of the Catholic Caveman (if you haven't had your Recommended Daily Allowance of Vitriol I urge you to visit IMMEDIATELY). I remarked that Cardinal Arinze's number two man was living in "fantasyland" for seeming to intimate that the restoration of the Tridentine MAss would somehow magically fill our churches and seminaries. For my troubles I was subject of a post titled A Spiritual Descendant Of martin luther Speaks! THIS is an example of an "obedient priest"?. My charitable friend then went on to conclue his post thusly: "I know a person or two who has connections in The Vatican. I'm sure the Apastolic Nuncio and Archbishop Ranjith himself would be just tickled to death to read this."

And people can blame me for suggesting that these types are hate-filled, judgmental, and self-righteous? Come on!

When merely expressing an opinion is equated with total disobedience to the Magisterium we have a problem. And for the record, my opinion reflects my personal experience. In the four years since my ordination, in the two parishes in which I have served, I have had maybe three people express interest in the "Extraordinary Form." Get real people. The average Catholic in the pew has no interest in this.

St. Ignatius of Antioch

Today we celebrate the feast of Ignatius of Antioch, who shed his blood, was "ground by the teeth of beasts into Christ's pure bread," in the opening years of the second Christian century. Ignatius is one of my favorites of the primitive Church; he is a strong witness at a very early date to much that we take for granted in the Church today. Thus I find him to be a poignant counterpoint to the oft-repeated Protestant claim that much that is "Catholic" is merely medieval invention.

I particularly rely on him in teaching that most Catholic of all doctrines, the Real Presence. In his letter to the Church at Smyrna Ignatius rails against the heretics (docetists) who "abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (7:1). How much more clearly could the case be stated? Here, within eighty years of the death and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus, we have clear proof that the orthodox teaching of the Church was that the Eucharist was truly, not symbolically, the Body and Blood of Christ.

Great Article

I just read a great article on deaconsforlife.org dealing with the issue of clerical celibacy. Here is a snippet:

I find the tendency by some theologically "conservative" Catholics to discount the position of those who invite reconsideration of mandatory celibacy as somehow less "faithful" to the Church’s Magisterium both annoying and misplaced. Worse, I find efforts to lump anyone who disagrees with mandatory celibacy as dissenters to be offensive. The insinuation that anyone who proposes a return to voluntary celibacy chosen as a vocational response to God’s call - before ordination to the order of deacon- is less theologically faithful is historically, factually, and theologically wrong.

Read the whole thing here.

Raison d'Être

Despite the rather harshly worded title and subtitle of this blog I do not believe myself to be a heretic. In fact, I consider myself a faithful son of Holy Mother Church. I have just become so disillusioned with the poisonous and hate-filled blogs of so-called "Catholics" which seem to dominate the Catholic presence on the web. (Perhaps it might be better to say that they drown out the authentic Catholic voice.) Realizing the relative dearth of sensible Catholic blogs I decided to throw my hat into the ring.

I do want to draw attention to the hatred of so many on the right. I do not think it proper that these "traditionalists," or whatever else they want to call themselves, should be able to slander, accuse, calumniate, and otherwise vilify every single Catholic - from the Holy Father on down - who do not see perfectly eye to eye with them on each and every issue. Such a mindset very often leads trad to turn on trad, anathematizing each other for not being "orthodox" or "traditional" enough. The end result is that those most far out there (the infamous Br. Dimond and his "Holy Family Monastery" springs immediately to mind) end up being a magisterium unto themselves. (Can anyone say Luther?)

If I overstate something, feel free to call me to task (as some already have) and I will glad reevaluate the post to see if what I wrote is really what I meant. And I am more than happy to entertain your disagreements with my point of view. Let's just do it with Christian charity. Please.

Creation

It seems that some who have commented on my post about Scott Hahn want to stick to a fundamentalist and literalist approach to the Bible, the Book of Genesis in particular, the Creation story specifically. Let me try to set things straight here. First off, "creation story" is itself a misnomer; there are two different creation stories at the beginning of the Book of Genesis. (Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-2:25.) Read them yourself and compare them. Among inconsistencies between the two the most glaring involves the creation of man and woman. In the first account (the "on the first day, etc" telling) God creates man and woman together after he has made the plants and animals. "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen 1:27). In the second, he first creates "the man" (ha-adam in Hebrew). Then he creates all the plants. The the animals in an effort to give the man a helpmate. Finally he puts the man in a deep sleep, removes a rib and creates a woman, whom the man names Eve.

If one insists on taking Genesis 1 and 2 literally then one is forced into mental gymnastics in order to make the two stories mesh. Do we believe in a God that would require us to do that? If he had intended the stories to be a literal retelling of exactly how he created don't you think he would have made them non-contradictory? I would think that the perfect God in Whom we believe would be able to get His facts right!

Fundamentalists (Protestant or Catholic) apparently have no such problem. They even take the absurdity to a higher level. In order to defend the 6,000-some year old age of the earth (as calculated by the 17th century Anglican Bishop James Ussher) they resort to the claim that God planted fossils that appear ancient in order to deceive nonbelievers. Give me a break! That's not the kind of God I want to believe in.

It is time for people to grow up intellectually and accept the Bible as the Word of God, not a history and science treatise.

Santa Teresa de Jesus

Today is the Feast of "big" Teresa (to distinguish her from the Little Flower, Therese of Lisieux). One of my favorite quotes from her is "May God protect me from gloomy saints." In her words I find perhaps my biggest beef with traditionalist and ultraconservative Catholics - they seem totally devoid of Joy. Touring around all their blogs and websites leaves one very depressed indeed. There is no joy, no love, no hope in what they write. And yet they consider themselves "the remnant," the "true Christians." But how can this be? Did not Jesus say He came that "My joy may be in you, and that your joy be complete" (Jn 15:11)? Of course He is referring first and foremost to our ultimate joy in Heaven. But geez! I think He also wants us to have some joy here below as well! And if we really believe the awesome Good News of our precious faith then why wouldn't our lives be overflowing with joy?
My absolute favorite story of Teresa (I'm cutting and pasting from another site rather than writing it out again myself; call me lazy!):

St. Teresa of Avila showed a like wisdom. One day at dinner she was heartily enjoying the roast partridge. Another nun, a little shocked, asked her if it wouldn't be better to be praying than to be enjoying dinner. Teresa answered, "When I pray, I pray; when I partridge, I partridge!"

Now here was a woman who knew that life was a gift from God to be enjoyed not merely suffered through! All of us who aspire to true holiness could learn a lot from here. Especially all those "gloomy saints" of the far right!

The Monsignor, part 2

Was doing a little bit more reading on the Vatican Monsignor gone bad. Does he really think anyone would be gullible enough to fall for his cockamamie story? The following is from a Times online (United Kingdom) article.

Yesterday he claimed that he was pretending to be gay in an attempt to unmask a Satanic plot to seduce Catholic priests to homosexuality and thus discredit the Church. “I only pretended I was gay to study how priests are seduced,” said Mgr Stenico, a frequent guest on television programmes discussing religious issues. “There are people who go after them . . . I really believe there is a diabolical plan by groups of Satanists.”

Mgr Stenico admits inviting a man whom he met on a gay website to his office, across the piazza from Saint Peter’s Basilica, after expressing an attraction to sado-masochism. What he did not know was that the young man was working for a TV investigation on homosexuality among Catholic priests and went to the tryst with a concealed video camera. The footage was shown this month by La 7, the national TV channel.

It shows the young man entering the lift to Mgr Stenico’s office and then speaking with the priest in his office. The faces and voices are heavily disguised to respect privacy laws but with the help of subtitles the topics being discussed are obvious.

Mgr Stenico asks the man, “Do you like me?” and tells him that he is very good-looking. When the young man expresses fears that having sex would be “a sin in the eyes of the Church”, the priest replies: “I do not feel it would be sinful.” Drawn on the subject of sado-masochistic sex, the monsignor says that these are “inner choices, the psychological basis of a personality”. The young man continues to raise moral and religious objections to actually having sex, until the priest becomes irritated, says that he has no time left and takes him back to the lift. On parting, the Monsignor tells him that he is “really tasty” and that he can telephone him or send him a message.

Do you buy it? I don't!

The Monsignor got stung!

Quite a story from Rome about the Vatican Monsignor caught in the Italian TV hidden camera sting exposing gay priests. I'm surprised they only managed to entrap one! Everyone knows there must be countless numbers of them running around the Church's inner sanctum. I have even heard it speculated that the Church's almost irrational determination to preserve mandatory clerical celibacy has its roots in the gay clerical subculture at the very top; too many risk being exposed as the flamers they are if celibacy is no longer required of priests. One would like to think that such speculation is totally off the mark. But is it? I wonder sometimes. It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds.

Wedding

Ah what a rare pleasure! I had a wedding this afternoon and both the bride and groom are actually church-attending, practicing Catholics. Sadly one doesn't see that too often anymore.

The best part of all was that the congregation actually participated in the Mass. yes, they responded to the prayers, knew when to sit, stand, kneel, and -get this! - even sang. Will wonders never cease!

I will go to bed a happy man tonight!

The Hahn Effect

A parishioner today shared with me some insights she had received from reading Scott Hahn. I had never really paid attention to him before; I knew the name and that he was a convert but that was about it. Well, after the discussion with "Doris" (the names have been changed to protect the innocent) I did a little google search and perused some of what Mr. Hahn had written about the Fall. I got the impression that he was treating the opening chapters of Genesis as though they were an historical account rather than a theological construct. Such literalism is most definitely not indicative of a Catholic approach to Sacred Scripture. I have to wonder if all the high profile evangelicals who have converted to the Catholic Church have truly shed their fundamentalist approach to the Bible. What do others think? Perhaps I am reading more into this. Perhaps I misread Hahn.

Reality check

One supposed "fact" so called "traditionalists" like to state is that the pedophilia/homosexuality problem in the priesthood is all the result of "evil" Vatican II seminaries. I recently read the Grand Jury Report on the the Archdiocese of Philadelphia's handling of sexual abuse cases. It is very telling that the distribution of miscreant clerics is almost evenly divided between those ordained before and those ordained after the council. Reality usual doesn't mesh mesh with the traditionalist's "fantasy land". But don't worry; they'd never allow reality to disturb their view of the world!

Don't believe me? Read the report for yourself. I have to warn you, though. It is very disturbing.

New to all of this ....

The following post on DYMPHNA'S ROAD led me to jump into the blogging world. I was just THAT disgusted!

On another blog, sorry I can't remeber which-- someone remarked that it's a shame that parishes were closed on Labor Day and glumly noted that the priesthood has become too much like a regular job. Well, in defense of priests everywhere I have to say that it's not Father's fault. Unless he's a tough old dude who's been there for 20 years or a bright, young fearless lad most parishes are run by grisled, bitter lesbians or grouchy church ladies in polyesther stretch pants. They run the office. They decide if your issue is worth calling Father. They make bad enemies. They write long letters to the bishop and get answered. They would be as fierce as harpies if Fr. dared to suggest that they work on a holiday. It's a rare man who wants to face down angry women.

My parish is blessed with high testosterone and no nonsense young priests so the church was open on Labor Day and Mass went on as usual but again, my pastor is a saint and the parochial vicar is as brave as Aragorn. How many parishes have that?

And I was moved to respond as follows:

Of all the crazy things I have read on the internet THIS takes the cake! Say what you will about priests. We are use to the abuse and have developed thick skin. But to dare to suggest that parish staff should be treated as slaves, not even deserving of a holiday off to spend with family/friends takes the total lack of Christian charity displayed by so many out there in cyberspace to a new level.

How dare the holier-than-thou set complain because a priest doesn't force a poor secretary to be there to wait on their every whim at their convenience! I guess a truly good priest, with "high testosterone," would even make the staff work on Christmas Day. Why should such people, who are so obviously "grisled, bitter lesbians or grouchy church ladies in polyesther stretch pants" be given the slightest bit of consideration.

Am I the only one able who can see the total self-centeredness in such an unchristian attitude? The last time I looked the Gospel of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ stressed service to others. These people seem concerned only with having others wait on them. What a disgrace!!!!

Our Church is truly in a sorry state! Mary Mother of the Church pray for us. PLEASE!