Some News Highlights

A few recent news highlights...

* Bishop John Steinbock of Fresno died Sunday at age 73. He suffered for four months with lung cancer prior to his death

* St. Patrick’s Old Cathedral was formally inaugurated as a basilica this weekend. The gothic style basilica was built in the early 1800's and was designated a NYC landmark decades ago

* The head of the U.S. bishops' conference has added his signature to an open letter defending marriage as "the permanent and faithful union of one man and one woman" that is "fundamental to the well-being of all of society". The 'shared commitment' letter was also signed by leaders of various 'religious communities' (Protestants, Jews, etc.). Archbishop Dolan affirmed that marriage protects the common good and noted that "People of any faith or no faith at all can recognize that when the law defines marriage as between one man and one woman, it legally binds a mother and a father to each other and their children, reinforcing the foundational cell of human society." [Related: Catholic teachings on marriage (Topic Page)]

[12/6]

News Highlights

Some recent news highlights...

* A Spanish Jesuit is reportedly on a hunger strike in protest over land disputes in Venezuela. The hunger strike is apparently putting his health at "grave risk"

* In an address to members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope Benedict indicated that science should not be feared, but that it is also not a panacea

* A Brazilian priest was reportedly shot in the back and found dead in his car earlier this week. No suspects or motives were indicated

* The planned gathering in Rome of abuse victims & and their supporters - scheduled for the anniversary day of Martin Luther's nailing of his '95 Theses' to the door (10/31) - which seeks to "demand greater accountability from the Vatican" will proceed. However, since permission to hold the event in St. Peter's Square was denied, they will apparently gather at a nearby location. According to a Canadian Press report, "A few hundred people from a dozen countries are expected" to participate

* Here we go again: The president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue has wished Hindus a "joy-filled Deepavali" and a "a happy Deepavali" (Deepavali is a Hindu festival in which Hindus worship false gods) [Commentary: Ignoring the First Commandment won't make it go away, it just makes for scandal: "I am the Lord your God; you shall not have strange gods before me"]

* The USCCB is reportedly 'moving towards official mutual recognition of baptism' between the Catholic Church and various Protestant groups. While properly conducted baptisms performed by Protestants (or anyone for that matter) have always been recognized as valid by the Church, 'scrupulous priests' - aware of the grave importance of baptism - (wisely!) recommend "conditional baptism" for those entering the Catholic Church. A USCCB document concerning "the Eucharist/Lord’s Supper" is also expected a result of dialog between Catholics (who have and accept the Real Presence) and heretical groups (who typically neither have nor accept the Real Presence) [Commentary: Truly reconciling two contrary positions is an effort square the circle. Obviously, to stand in truth the erring party must actually change their position - and to do so concerning the Holy Eucharist would essentially require that Protestants repudiate their entire religion. Remember that the Catholic religion stands or falls (stands!) on the doctrine that the Holy Eucharist is literally the Flesh & Blood of Christ under the mere appearance of bread and wine. It is obviously a matter of the utmost significance and compromise is impossible]

[10/29]

News Highlights

The following are some recent news highlights...

* Pope Benedict has announced that a guidebook is being developed to assist couples in preparing for marriage.

* USCCB at it again: The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is reportedly sponsoring an event which includes speakers who have been called "prominent anti-Catholic bigots". Speakers include a homosexual activist (related story here) and a priest "forced to resign by the Vatican" over his publishing of articles which question Church teachings.

* Ecumeniacs at it again: Cardinal Kasper has "floated the idea" of an "ecumenical catechism" that would be "written in consultation" with non-Catholics. Anyone doubt the work would conveniently exclude the terms "papal infallibility", "heretic", "schism", and "no salvation outside the Church"? Save us, O Lord!

* An immensely popular daytime television program which has "greatly harmed morality in the U.S." through its airing of scandalous, raunchy, and otherwise offensive content will apparently feature Dominican sisters on an upcoming show. The Oprah Winfrey Show is scheduled to feature the habit-weaning sisters on 2/9/10. The sisters hope the program will "further understanding of religious life."

* A "self-proclaimed anti-Catholic bigot" who is a member of the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships has come under fire for his insulting & inaccurate comments about Pope Benedict XVI. Harry Knox has charged the Holy Father with "hurting people in the name of Jesus" over the Pope's opposition to (gravely immoral) c*ntraceptives. News accounts indicate that a coalition of Catholic leaders has sent an open letter to President Obama demanding that Knox be fired.

* Msgr. Michel Schooyans, professor emeritus of the Catholic University of Louvain, has published an essay which discusses "true and bogus compassion in acts and standpoints observable in the world today." He charged the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, and the President of the Pontifical Academy for Life (a organization that is said to be expressing "fear for its future") with "pseudo-compassion" over their response to the recent scandal involving a nine-year old Brazilian girl who had an abortion. He noted that, "Pseudo-compassion, frequently invoked in favor of the perpetrators of acts which are inherently wrong, such as abortion, hence leads to scandal; it invites others into grave sin". He also warned that "'pseudo-compassion' leads to heresy and division."

* An Anglican "Archbishop"* has created a stir by his remarks concerning the Pope's provisions designed to make it easier for Anglicans to enter the Catholic Church. The Anglican "prelate"* said: "If people genuinely realize that they want to be Roman Catholic, they should convert properly, and go through catechesis and be made proper Catholics" and noted that "...if I was really, genuinely wanting to convert, I wouldn’t go into an ordinariate. I would actually go into catechesis and become a truly converted Roman Catholic and be accepted." [* Reminder: Anglican 'clergy' are not true priests - their orders have been ruled invalid by the Church: "Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void." (Pope Leo XIII, "Apostolicae Curae", 1896 A.D., emphasis added)]

[2/8]

Pardon me, your bias is showing

The following appears in an opening paragraph of a CNS article covering the Pope's 2009 activities:

"The Year of St. Paul. The Year for Priests. A major social encyclical. A Holy Land pilgrimage. A first meeting with President Obama. Ten new saints. An African trip and an African synod. A Facebook debut. A controversial concession to Catholic traditionalists. An unexpected overture to disaffected Anglicans."

It doesn't take a hound dog to sniff out the bias there, does it? The "eyebrow raising" encyclical calling for "large-scale redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale" which speaks "urgent need of a true world political authority" which is "universally recognized" and "vested with... effective power...[and] the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties" is referred to simply as a "major social encyclical." The other events are also simply listed. But, the lifting of some excommunications...that is referred to as a "controversial concession to Catholic traditionalists."

Although one might (unfortunately) expect such bias in the secular media, it seems especially out of place in a news service of the U.S. bishops - a news service that they claim "has set the standard in Catholic journalism". But then again, it's hardly surprising in light of some of their recent coverage, coverage which prompted one author to state that "It is bizarre theater indeed when an American Cardinal must directly refute the errors in a piece that was syndicated, published and propagated by the news service owned by the very Bishops' Conference to which he belongs, and this just months after the leadership of said news service was put on notice by a powerful Vatican prelate".

Even if the Pope's lifting of the excommunications was "controversial" (particularly to the Jews), was it really any more controversial than some of the novel passages in the encyclical or the Vatican's recent playlist including a rap song with explicit lyrics, or any other events occurring in 2009? So, why single this one out for the label "controversial"? One who didn't know any better might think the bishops were biased in a liberal direction - or that were more concerned about Jews' feelings than Church unity. But, no, that can't be the case. Certainly not.

[12/17]

Recent News Highlights

Some recent news highlights include...

* The U.S. bishops' meeting began on Monday, November 16, in Baltimore. Topics include healthcare reform, the new translation of the Roman Missal, a pastoral letter on marriage, 'reproductive technology', and directives for the sick concerning nutrition & hydration. The meeting is scheduled to conclude on November 19.

* Concerning the healthcare bill which recently passed the House, pro-lifers have revealed that this massive bill creates a federal grant program in which taxpayer dollars will be used to fund programs which "improve rates of c*ntraceptive use" among teens. Therefore, due to increased use of abortifacient c*ntraceptives, taxpayer money will be used for abortions - despite the Stupak amendment which purports to prohibit taxpayer funding for "most" abortions. Pro-lifers are calling on the bishops to be "more forceful" in their pro-life efforts.

* The former PP director turned pro-lifer says Planned Parenthood "frequently threatens people who go against them" and says that the organization "runs on fear. They are scared of what they do know, and they are scared of what they don't know."

* Cardinal Schönborn ("rock-balloon Mass" participant) will make a "completely private visit" to Medjugorje, according to "leaked" reports. Local authorities "have declared that the alleged apparitions are not to be published or promoted", and Bishop Peric recently said that "we cannot behave as if these 'apparitions' are authentic and approved." One CDF official told CNA that "The local bishops have the ultimate authority on this matter, and their arguments against the alleged apparitions are doctrinally solid." [Click here for more on alleged apparitions at Medjugorje]

[11/17]

Two Letters Making Waves

A couple recent letters have been making waves in Catholic circles. The first is a draft of a pastoral letter on marriage by the U.S. bishops. It was "leaked" to the press and will be discussed & voted on by the bishops in November. The second is a pastoral letter of the Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa. Brief highlights concerning both appear below.

U.S. Bishops' Letter

The 57-page pastoral letter on marriage is said to discuss Catholic teaching on marriage as well as covering "fundamental challenges to the nature and purpose of marriage" such as c*ntraception, homosexual unions, divorce and cohabitation. The document reportedly also covers harm to children from cohabitation and divorce, as well as harm to society from same-sex unions.

On the positive side, the letter has been "harshly criticized" by dissenters. On the negative side, the document is said to encourage NFP while omitting reference to the required "serious reason" which make its use licit only in certain cases and only for certain periods (click here for more information). Also potentially troubling are references to 'remarriage' which may lack forceful denunciations and reminders of the gravity of sin involved. Even when actions are condemned as "gravely immoral", one may fear that the final document will (as is common nowadays) omit all mention of the grave eternal consequences of such actions as well as the divine mandate not to engage in them.

For example, which explanation do you think is more likely to prevent fornication?

* "To [engage in the marital act] outside the covenant of marriage is gravely immoral because it communicates physically the gift of oneself to another when, at the same time, one is not willing or able to make a total and permanent commitment."

* "To [engage in the marital act] outside the covenant of marriage is a mortal sin that offends God. Those who engage in this sin may suffer the pains of hell for all eternity. Scripture says, "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers...will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-10) and says that "If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries. Anyone who rejects the law of Moses is put to death without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant-blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace? We know the one who said: 'Vengeance is mine; I will repay,' and again: 'The Lord will judge his people.' It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb. 10:26-31)

One may be permitted to think the latter would have a better chance of deterring sin, especially since this approach seems more closely aligned with writings of previous popes, saints, and even Holy Scripture.

Letter of Bishop of Sioux City, Iowa

Certain Catholics may be glad to hear that Bishop Nickless' recent pastoral letter includes a reference to exorcising the spirit of Vatican II. Specifically, the bishop says, "The so-called 'spirit' of the Council has no authoritative interpretation. It is a ghost or demon that must be exorcised if we are to proceed with the Lord’s work." He also says that "It is crucial that we all grasp that the hermeneutic or interpretation of discontinuity or rupture, which many think is the settled and even official position, is not the true meaning of the Council" and says that "There can be no split...between the Church and her faith before and after the Council."

The Bishop embraces Vatican II, but wants to see it "fully implemented and brought to fruition." In fact, not only does he embrace Vatican II, but he somehow actually considers it "the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church in centuries." There seems to be no precedent for "the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church in centuries" which also requires that it's "so-called 'sprit'...must be exorcised."

Certainly his letter is not a 'traditionalist's document' [e.g. it contains multiple, unqualified references to "Pope John Paul the Great" (click here for one user's article on this topic), it says Vatican II's "aggiornamento brought about a great breath of fresh air, a new freedom and excitement about being Catholic", it speaks favorably concerning certain novelties, etc.], but it does note a loss of sense of sin and refers to problems in today's liturgy, calling for a renewed "reverence, love, adoration and devotion to the Most Blessed Sacrament, within and outside of Mass."

There seems to be no word on which exorcist may be called in for the task, but still it's an interesting thought, is it not?

[Related Resources: Summary of Changes Since Vatican II: A Revolution in the Church? | Vatican II and its Fruits]

[10/16]

Moral Outrage (at least on some fronts)

In another blow to pro-lifers, the U.S. bishops have congratulated President Obama - "the most pro-abortion president in history" - on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, stating that...

"In our own country, the remarkable and historic achievement of his election has changed the relationships between men and women of all races. The rich diversity of United States society is now more surely anchored in a national unity that is better able to foster the peace we all are challenged to pursue."

So because a (half) black man has been elected president we are now "more surely anchored in a national unity that is better able to foster the peace we all are challenged to pursue" - even though this man champions s*domy & the killing of the unborn? Even though he has increased international abortions and keeps pushing for more increases in abortion? Even though he rejects marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman? Even though he wants c*ntraceptives handed out to children in government-run schools?

Previously, news of the award was "greeted with appreciation at the Vatican in light of the president's demonstrated commitment to promoting peace on an international level and, in particular, in recently promoting nuclear disarmament", a reaction that caused "shock and dismay" to pro-lifers. As one anonymous pro-life leader told the LifeSiteNews.com website, "If Obama was good on international peace and nuclear disarmament but favored the killing of Jews, its not likely he would get either the Noble Peace Prize or be praised by the Vatican."

Passed over for the Nobel Peace Prize were true champions of peace with tangible accomplishments who are not - as ALL's Judie Brown notes regarding Obama - "dedicated to war in the womb". Besides, as faithful Catholics might ask, how can Obama be given any award for peace - no matter what accomplishments he might have achieved - in light of the fact that he is an unrepentant & ardent promoter of the murder of the unborn? What peace can there be when the weakest among us can be killed with impunity? Had Hitler ever made any true advancements in the name of peace - much less simple 'hopes' - could everyone look the other way regarding his barbaric slaughter of Jewish people because of these efforts (or hopes)? How can we look the other way when an even greater number of children have been killed by their own mothers through abortion? And Obama isn't against these murders, but has done much to foster and expand the killing - even using your tax dollars to do so.

Fortunately the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, was at least partially critical of the award (a 'happy surprise' given some of their recent controversial articles), stating that "Analysts have almost unanimously interpreted his selection as a way of pressuring Obama to make pacifist choices as his administration continues forward." The paper also said that Obama should "recall that in 1979 he was preceded by Mother Teresa, who had the courage to state in her acceptance speech that the harshest war with the greatest number of 'fallen' is the practice of abortion, legalized and facilitated as well by the international structures" and noted "that the selection process has become mired in being politically correct."

Unfortunately though, the paper concluded that "at the same time, as the director of the Holy See’s Press Office has stated, we cannot help but rejoice at the recognition of President Obama’s efforts at nuclear disarmament and his personal disposition towards a policy that seeks peace more than the affirmation of U.S. power in the world." Once again, it seems fair to ask if Hitler made efforts at nuclear disarmament (or simply hoped to), could everyone look the other way regarding his barbaric slaughter of Jewish people because of these efforts (or hopes) and not help but "rejoice"? Do you think they would still "rejoice" if their own parents were among those killed by him simply because he supported nuclear disarmament? What if he supported nuclear disarmament even at the very same time that he supported killing more members of their own families? Think they'd still be rejoicing? Think they couldn't "help but rejoice"? Maybe they'd give him a peace prize themselves? Would they then also consider giving Ted Bundy or Charles Manson a peace prize for some perceived good they accomplished (or hoped to achieve) in light of the murders they were also responsible for? Even if these two serial killers were big supporters of nuclear disarmament, it's extremely doubtful anyone would consider giving either of them an award for peace. But unborn babies are every bit as victimized by abortion as these killers' victims were - even more so if you consider that these infants probably never had an opportunity for baptism - so why give an award for peace to someone who supports their killing?

How is it the Vatican, the bishops, and the Vatican newspaper "cannot help but rejoice" at the news of the Peace Prize being given to a radical abortion promoter? Numerous faithful Catholics are morally outraged and want to know why their leaders are expressing "appreciation" and "rejoicing" instead of joining them in expressing moral outrage. Why waste this great teachable moment? Why not tell the world there will be no peace while society tolerates the murder of babies in the womb? Why not remind the world that true peace is not possible when we do not obey Christ? How can they feel "appreciative" and "rejoice" at the thought that this man would fight for the 'right' to kill them as well as their loved ones - and anyone else for that matter - while they were in the womb? Let's also not forget that this same 'peaceful' man voted against giving medical care to babies born alive after an 'unsuccessful' abortion. Still rejoicing?

What about the recent comments of the self-professed 'champion' of s*domites that echo his previous statements & actions. Do they still feel "appreciative" and "rejoice" at the award in light of the following recent remarks of Obama's?...

* Obama has pledged to be with the homosexuals in their "fight" (sound peaceful?), saying that "we will have moved closer to that day when no one has to be afraid to be gay in America. When no one has to fear walking down the street holding the hand of the person they love."

* Obama claims that those who oppose homosexual 'marriage' are holding "outworn arguments and old attitudes"

* Obama claims that defenders of traditional marriage "would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution" and claims that they are pushing "divisive and deceptive efforts to feed people’s lingering fears for political and ideological gain"

* Obama stated that his administration will work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. He is also trying to get the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act passed as well as moving ahead with plans to end the military's "don't ask, don't tell policy"

* Obama told a homosexual advocacy group that they "will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman" (emphasis added)

Still rejoicing? Still think the man promotes peace? Does it bother you that he is spending your hard-earned tax dollars on new federal benefits for 'LGBT families', not to mention increased funding for abortion? Doesn’t it make you sick to think that he and his wife purposely invited "LGBT families to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll, because we want to send a message"? Doesn't it offend you that he's doing all he can to push sinful, abhorrent homosexual unions as well as the murder of the unborn? How can a man so committed to half of only four sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance [namely: (1) willful murder (abortion), and (2) sodomy] be given an award for peace? And how can our Catholic leaders be "appreciative" of and "rejoicing" at the news? Enough rejoicing already - this is a time for lamination!

"'Peace, peace!' they say, though there is no peace. They are odious; they have done abominable things, yet they are not at all ashamed, they know not how to blush. Hence they shall be among those who fall; in their time of punishment they shall go down, says the LORD." (Jer. 6:14-15)

"We remember saying that...as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of Our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations." (Pope Pius XI)

[Related: The End of Freedom in America?]

[10/12]

Rewarding lawbreakers

The president of the USCCB has called for "comprehensive immigration reform legislation". He claims "we do not approve or encourage the illegal entry of anyone into our country" but then seems to call for amnesty. Isn't amnesty essentially "approving and encouraging" those who have broken the law? Could someone please explain how it is possible to "not approve or encourage" breaking the law if you reward precisely those who do break the law? Even elementary school children are smart enough to know that rewards influence behavior. Our bishops don't know that? [Note: Previous story here] [6/18]

Let's be clear: NO

What seems obvious to countless laity is apparently "ambiguous" to certain persons in higher Catholic education. The President of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities claims that the 2004 USCCB statement which reads: "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions" is ambiguous. He claims that "greater clarity is needed." Perhaps a simple "DON'T DO IT" would be more clear. Or would that also be too ambiguous for a person holding such a lofty position? Excuses, excuses. [story here] [5/11]

No more excuses

Now that Bishop D'Arcy has publicly issued a statement to the faithful, perhaps any remaining "controversy" can be put to an end. The bishop stated unequivocally that "I consider it now settled - that the USCCB document, Catholics in Public Life, does indeed apply in this matter." It will be interesting to see what happens. Could one be allowed to hope that Obama may be disinvited from ND's commencement? Or at least not be given an honorary law degree? Time to start praying... [4/22]