Washington Post: "The Catholic Church is like a dysfunctional family."

Read the entire article here.

Mommy and daddy are fighting, and the anguished children don’t know where to turn.

This is the state of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States today. A small group of very conservative bishops has hijacked the church, or at least the public voice of the church. The bishops are playing the role of the authoritarian father. In case after case, their message to the faithful is “Do it because I say so.”

This is how this article starts. It starts by depicting the Church as a family (which it is) which is having some serious "daddy issues." These issues of course are because of the more conservative bishops exercising their authority to remain true to Catholic beliefs and values. I've already done a post in which I spoke briefly on the non-sensical notion of conservatism vs. liberalism in the Catholic Church and showed how idiotic it is to even remotely suggest there to be such a thing. Because in all honesty it comes down to two things: orthodoxy vs. heresy, and to attempt to artificially inject politics into the Church is nothing more than a pitiful attempt to justify a personally held political belief. But, I digress...

As I was saying, the Washington Post would have us believe that these so-called conservative bishops have put the average Catholic in the pews in an uncomfortable positon. To begin with they talk about the HHS contraceptive mandate and state that:

"82% of American Catholics believe birth control is morally acceptable..."

followed by this little gem:

"A much larger group of more moderate bishops has stayed mostly silent, fearful that to take a stand against the brethren would be to lay bare intramural fissures. They play the role of the silent and frustrated mother."

That's right, the so-called conservative bishops are a bunch of mysogynistic-type bullies! And of course, the victim in this relationship has to be on the side of logic and rational order. Quoteth the article:

"Only one brave bishop has so far explained his refusal to sign on with the authoritarian minority. Like a parent who prefers to work on marital disagreements in private, rather than expose the kids to disharmony and force them to choose sides...he wanted the bishops to do more consensus building."

A "brave" bishop? Really? One who is open to FORCING a religious body to go against its established teachings? How is this, pray tell, "brave?" Sounds cowardly to me. I especially like the part where he is asking for consensus, since when did the Catholic Church become a democracy? There is a link to this "brave" bishop's statement and, surprise, surprise, this California bishop published his offical statement in the left-leaning Jesuit magazine America. So I must ask myself the question: who's playing politics here? The so-called conservative bishops who are holding fast to Catholic teachings or the left-leaning bishop who is calling for compromise on established Church teaching?

Orthodox bishops are cruel and unrelenting! Moderate bishops are brave and pioneering for a better solution! The average Catholics are stuck in the middle not knowing what to do! All is lost! Oh no! Won't somebody please think of the children??? Thank God for the Washington Post! For it truly cares about the children; it is towards the end of the article is where we hit pure journalism [fool's] gold! The article states:

"In the middle, of course are the kids, who love their parents and want them to get along - and hate, no matter where they stand on issues of sexual morality and religious liberty...[they] continue, in their anguish, to attend Mass on Sundays, holding out the hope that future family happiness is somehow possible..."

Now if that doesn't pull at the proverbial heart strings and get you on the side of the "kids and the mother" then I don't know what will. So much of this article is intended to do just that, to depict the Catholic faithful and the "brave" bishops as being on the end of a short stick because of the so-called conservative bishop's evil, manical, traditionalist views! What...A...Load. Here's a newsflash to the anti-Catholic folks at the Washington Post: Daddy is always right.

If in fact, the Church is made up of this so-called family that the Washington Post would have us believe, then let's see how this would be in real life. The father wants what is best for his family, he understands, knows and practices what he preaches. The kids in the family, being children, have unfortunately been told and fed a lot of things inconsistant with what the father has always held to be the undeniable truth; they've sometimes have rebelled, acted contrary to the dad's wishes, even embarassing him a few times but, they're his children and he loves them. The mother is trying to avoid the strife between the children and the father by relenting her role as mother, she would much rather be on good standing with her children then the disciplinarian. She unfortunately has thus put the father into a bad light, and has served as a catalyst of sorts in this whole familial distopia.

In this case, "the father" are all of the true bishops who are holding fast to opposition against governmental intrusion into The Church's affairs. "The mother" are those bishops who are content in giving up some part of ESTABLISHED TEACHING for the common good perhaps even for political reasons (?) and, "the children" are us, the lay faithful who either refuse or accept what "the father" knows is best for us. Refusing to deny and use birth control can be hard for some of us "children" but, daddy knows it is best for us not to use it because of the potential disaserous consequence that it can lead to. Refusing to accept certain teachings from our faithful "father" such as, indulgences and opposite sex marriage only, can be difficult for some of us as his "children" but, he knows why he teaches these things; he teaches them in order to become better human beings and grow in love, charity and humility with Christ our Lord.

Make no mistake, father knows best. For any Catholic to go against what is taught by the Church out of ignorance is one thing but, to deliberately and willfully go against our Father and His Holy Church as well as what Jesus Christ commissioned the Church to do, is another. I would ask that any parents take stock of this post in light of your children and ask yourself, why did you have to discipline your children, if not to correct them? Doesn't the Church, in full communion with Christ and all of the Angels and Saints, have the same authority to do so whether you like it or not? Think about it, if you had to severly punish you child for something that he or she temporally did, how much greater would the spiritual punishment be if the child refused to obey the authority of the Church?

A Catholic politician sees the light!

Read the entire article here.

Democrat Committewoman, Jo Ann Nardelli, recently resigned from her political party due to her Catholic beliefs. Jo Ann Nardelli isn't just a regular old run-of-the-mill democrat, quite the contrary, she has a long and extensive history. She's the president and founder of the Blair County Federation of Democrat Women as well as being the Vice President of the Pennsylvannia Women's Caucus. She's met with Hillary Clinton in the past and has even given Vice President Joe Biden a rosary.

According to the article: 

Nardelli has always been a pro-life Democrat and felt that there was always room for that position in the party. But she said that for the past few years she's felt that the party was drifting further and further away from her. She said she never shied away from speaking about her Catholic faith or her pro-life views as a Democrat.

She said that for years she hoped that she could change the party from within, make it more in line with traditional values. "I thought I could make a difference to change our party. It didn’t work," she said. "I noticed it that it’s been going more and more to the left. This is not my father’s party. I did not leave the party, the party left me."

...She said it started a few weeks ago, ironically as she and her husband were getting ready for Mass and watching Meet the Press when Joe Biden, a Catholic, cited his support for gay marriage.

This shocked her. She said she'd always related to Biden. She said he reminded her of her father. But this announcement shocked her. And then, shortly after, President Obama announced that he'd "evolved" into supporting gay "marriage."

And then as a Democratic committeewoman she received her agenda from the party espousing the same position. "To stand up and agree and sign off on this I couldn’t do it," she said. "So I talked to our priest."

Without a doubt, this is a truly brave and couragous woman. Pray for her and her future endeavors and that she may, in her own way, shine the light of Christ and Truth in other people's lives.

Ex-Planned Parenthood Director talks about her journey and her new book.

Abby Johnson, author of “unPlanned: the dramatic true story of a former Planned Parenthood leader’s eye-opening journey across the life line”, is a courageous woman who has brought forward not just the Planned Parenthood story (at times nightmarish in their behavior), but more importantly, her story…the journey of conversion, forgiveness, and witness.  She didn’t go looking for the spotlight, but she didn’t say “no” when it fell on her and now she is standing up for life and exposing the reality of Planned Parenthood and the beautiful options for life that are truly available.  She can truly say, with all integrity, that she knows both sides of the battle, and she is choosing life.

Here the entire interview here. Another interesting fact about Mrs. Johnson is that she's a recent Catholic convert, she left the Episcopal church because of  the "church’s reaction to her conversion from pro-choice to pro-life."

Pick up her book here.

A look at true a vow of poverty in service of the Church

This man’s name is Dobre. A Bulgarian man living in abject poverty, but who has donated over 20,000 euros to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Everyday, he stands in the church and begs, but not for himself. All money given to him, he gathers and donates to the church. He is the biggest individual donor to the church in the past few decades. He walks several kilometers to the church each morning, and several kilometers back at the closing of each day. He is known as “The Righteous from Bailovo”, and has entered the 99th year of his life. 



Raw data from the 2010 Religious Census

 Among other things, the census found that although there were less Catholics in the Western U.S., more Catholic Churches grew in the West! The picture above shows that Catholics (in purple) are the largest religious group second to the Southern Baptist (red).

The picture above shows the percentage of Catholics per population, if its in red, it's over 5% or more of that counties population. Unfortunately, Catholic numbers in the NW have dropped somewhat. :-(

It's on. 40 U.S. Archdioceses sue the Obama Administration.

"This lawsuit is about an unprecedented attack by the federal government on one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference," the archdiocese says on the website. "It is not about whether people have access to certain services; it is about whether the government may force religious institutions and individuals to facilitate and fund services which violate their religious beliefs."

Check out the website here and learn more!

Need a reason for "boys only" alter servers?

The USCCB released the annual Survey of Ordinands to the Priesthood and, as it turns out, 2/3 of all of the new priest for 2012 were alter servers in their youth!

This keeps in conformity with last year's survey that reported 71% of the new priests that year were past alter servers.

2010's survey revealed that around 60% of the new priest were alter servers.

Something to keep in mind when a young girl whose been an alter server all her life says "girls should be priests too."

Devout Catholic, 21, ignores doctors' advice to abort unborn baby and gives birth to healthy girl.

"When Daniella Jackson was diagnosed with cancer at five months pregnant her doctors quickly advised her to have an abortion.

They said she needed a termination to allow her lung tumor to be removed before it killed her.

But the 21-year-old, who is a devout Roman Catholic, refused, saying she felt too close to her unborn child...

...Toward the end of her pregnancy, Miss Jackson’s lung disease was giving her asthma attacks on a daily basis. But she managed to battle on and, four months ago, gave birth four months ago.”

The power of faith when combined with truth, is unstoppable. Read the full article here.

Same-sex marriage was a Christian rite! Right? WRONG!!!

In scouring the interwebz this weekend, I couldn't help but notice the latest attack on Christianity by attempting to somehow justify same-sex marriage by linking the early medevial Catholic Church to same-sex unions. Right away, the first thing that came to my mind where all the different false "christian" heretical movements of the medevial period. I did so because I've noticed that often times when some outrageous claim is leveled against the Early Catholic Church, it usually is based on some heretical movement of that era and has noting to do with the Roman Catholic Church!

So I did some research on the Bogomilism movement of the 10th century, nothing! The Berengarians, nothing! The Petrobrosians, nothing! The Fraticelli, Flagellants, Lollards, nor the Waldensians, I could find nothing! The only heretical sect that perhaps came remotely close to same-sex marriage were the Albigenses who, among other things, actually believed marriage to be sinful. I attempted to do some more research but alas, I couldn't find any resources to lead me in the right direction, that was until last night when I went to National Catholic Register's website! But first, a cople of points the article makes.

According to this much ado about nothing article:

"a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men...Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself?..."

"...While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate...In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple..."

"Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John."
Over at Jimmy Akin's blog, I found the true and rational (duh) answer to this ridiculous proposition. Kudos to Jimmy Akin for once again doing an awesome apologetic explaination. Here's his excellent disection of this empty topic:

Aaaaaargh! Another "c"atholic politician speaks. Forgets that God too discriminates.

"My religion has, compels me--and I love it for it--to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this a form of discrimination."

U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca), states that it is because of discrimination that she, as a "c"atholic, has to support same-sex marriage. Well, in 2003 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a letter stating the Church's 2000 year policy of what marriage is and why it won't recognize same-sex marriages. It said in part:

"The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives."

In other words, God made us male and female; only men and women cooperating in marital love together can truly become one flesh, and only marital unions further God's purpose of creating new life that is welcomed, loved, nurtured and educated by both mother and father. Is this too radical an idea? I mean, come on! If in fact you are a Catholic, Mrs. Pelosi, then can we agree that there is a powerful and almighty God that created both sexes in His image and to be His children? If we can agree on that first, then the next question should be the easiest one: Why did God discriminate and make two different sexes???

Think about it. Right from the beginning, God discriminates. I'm not talking about hateful discrimination that the secular world and the media like to portray as the only form of discrimination there is but, I speak of just and merciful, indeed perfect, discrimination. Let me explain.

First, let's define discrimination. Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary states that the root word discriminate, is defined as:

"To mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of; to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; to distinguish from another like object; to make a distinction; to use good judgment; to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit."

Look really good at that definition and you'll note that each action of creation is an act of discrimination, as Peter Kreeft notes:

"In the book of Genesis not all discrimination and differentiation is between good and evil, God introduces distinctions into creation, including the distinction between male and female, for good...light from darkness, living, animal from plant, birds from fish, one species from another, man generically from animal and, male from female."

Additionally, God could've chosen ANY ethnic group to be His chosen people but, he chose the Israelites. He continued to discriminate even within the Israelite community by chosing one tribe, the tribe of Levi, above the other tribes to be His priests. Is it fair that the Isrealites were chosen above the pagans? Is it fair that the Levites were the only tribe to be deemed worthy to serve in the Temple? Is it fair that God treated different things differently? When it comes to marriage, God ordained it to be man and woman. To challenge this notion is to challenge God's intent within creation, as CCC# 369-373 readily affirms, God made man and woman because He willed it so and, "the respective 'perfections' of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband," also, "God created man and woman together and willed each for the other."

These are VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPTS for any Catholic to understand! They underscore not only the amazingness of our loving God but they also affirm that it is by the will of the One true God that man and woman are made and it is His will that they are made for one another by virtue of their distinctiveness. CCC #372 is most telling:

Man and woman were made "for each other" - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be "helpmate" to the other, for they are equal as persons ("bone of my bones. . .") and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming "one flesh", they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth." By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents co-operate in a unique way in the Creator's work.

Take notice at how God, by creating life, transmits life through the creation enacted by His will! This simple yet fundamental fact can thus be extended to different facets of human life, especially, that of contraception which by its very nature is designed to impede and block God's plan to transmit life. This can also extend into abortion and (getting back to the subject at hand), same-sex unions. The Catholic Church isn't against homosexuals, it is against anything that runs contrary to the will of God. Period.

So, I'll ask the same question  I posed at the begining of this post but, this time, to all "c"atholics: can we still agree that that there is a powerful and almighty God that created both sexes in His image and to be His children? If so, then the issue of same-sex marriage has a Catholic answer and, that answer is, "no." Any Catholic who states otherwise is gravely mistaken.

Protestant preacher "has the dissident nun's back"

I just finished reading an article in the Huffington Post penned by Jim Wallis. The article simply and clearly states that the dissident nuns aren't doing anything wrong and it is the big, bad Vatican - and the all-male hierachy - that's missing the big picture, that is, that the nuns are doing Christ's work. I didn't know who Mr. Wallis was, so I clicked on the link and read his bio. While I can't say that Mr. Wallis is anti-Catholic, it certainly is obvious that his personal Christian beliefs run counter to that of the Catholic Church.

It turns out that he is owns a website, http://www.sojo.net/, that is particularly concerned with social justice issues, but, as usual, the devil is in the details. Turns out that the Sojourner's website is for same-sex marriage and Mr. Wallis' wife was one of the first women to be ordained in the Church of England- two things definitely opposed to Catholic teaching. To his credit however, it would seem that his ministry is against abortion and he even came out in 2009 in support of Pope Benedict's encyclical Caritas in Veritate. Unfortunately, Mr. Wallis is at the wrong end of this arguement.

It seems kind of ironic when you think about it because here we have a man that, for all intents and purposes, has a belief system that fundamentaly is at odds with Holy Mother Church and yet, he is trying to defend the heretical actions of women who violated their authority. Like I said, Mr. Wallis may not be an anti-Catholic Protestant but, the nature of his arguement and affiliations certainly distance himself from accepting the truth of the Catholic Church. Let's look at a couple of the points he brings up in this article (read it in full here).

Mr. Wallis states:

"...They have reprimanded the women for not sufficiently upholding the bishops' teachings and doctrines and paying much more attention to issues like poverty and health care than to abortion, homosexuality and male-only priesthood." 

Sorry Mr. Wallis, it wasn't that the nuns weren't "uholding the bishop's teachings" it was that they weren't upholding the Catholic Church's teachings, under the natural supervision of the bishops and they had begun to take very liberal stances on contraception, homosexuality and women's priestly ordination.

"...they [the nuns] have been taken to task for 'occasional public statements' that disagree with the bishops..."

Occasional public statements? Like the 24 nuns who publically supported abortion and took out an ad in the New York Times? Or how about Margaret Traxler, a nun who openly accepted an overt pro-homosexuality view and even went so far as to carry a banner, into the Vatican, to protest the Church's stance on abortion? Or how about Jeanine Gramick, a nun who was head of New Ways Ministry, an organization that supports gay and lesbian Catholics, who in 1999 was removed from the ministry by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) due to her gross undermining the Church's teacing on homosexuality? How about Sister Mary Ann Cunningham who in 2006 distributed a "voter guide" encouraging the laiety to stand against Church teaching in matters of abortion and homosexual unions? How about Sister Louise Lears, who was banned from recieving the Sacraments in 2008 after her constant refusal to adhere to Church doctrine banning women's ordination as well as inciting the lay faithful against the Holy See? How about Donna Quinn, a Chicago area pro-abortion nun who actually escorted women to abortion mills? Or, how about Sister Margaret Mary McBride, who was excommunicated in 2009 after sactioning an abortion at a Catholic Hospital? Sorry, Mr. Wallis, but these incidences are way beyond simple "public statements" that "occasionally" happen! They are deliberate acts against the Catholic Church.

"The Vatican's approach to its concerns, to say the least, is quite regrettable. Condemnation and control were chosen over conversation and dialogue. Quite honestly, do most of us believe, or even most Catholics believe, that the bishops are the only 'authentic teachers of faith and morals?'"

To begin with, the Sisters are wrong and as such, need to be corrected. This isn't a disciplinary condemnation but instead a reproval of falsehoods, it's the mother (the Church) and the father (the Pope) correcting the child (the nuns). As for the bishops being the only authentic teachers of faith and morals, well Mr. Wallis, they kind of are. The Catechism of the Catholic Church #883 states the following:

"The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head..."

So, you see, as long as the bishops are in communion with Rome, they are THE teachers of our faith.

"...from a biblical point of view, the sisters may be right and the Vatican wrong."

The irony. A Protestant is telling the Church from which the Bible came from, that the very book they canonized in the year 400, dictates that they are wrong. Wow. Thankfully as Catholics, we don't and we never will, use "the bible alone" to dictate what the truth is! A little history for our Protestant friends: We have the early apostles being commissioned by Christ to spread His teachings unerringly with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, this group of 11 men had the AUTHORITY to proclaim what was right or wrong as well as the power to bind and loose. The early collection of these 11 men who had this TEACHING AUTHORITY, was the very first Magisterium. This group of men who taught unerringly, transmitted the message of Christ through words for the first few decades after Christ's Acension, this SPOKEN WORD of God had AUTHORITY because those first 11 men could indeed speak about the faith and the moral teachings of what Christ wanted for us; this SPOKEN WORD became what is called the Apostolic Tradition because all the information of this new religion was communicated through them and to their followers who followed the apostle's teaching for the first 3 decades of Christianity at which time, the first written words, usually in the form of written letters, began circulating through this early church. It wouldn't be for another 380 years before the Early Catholic Church, who drew upon the Magisterial AUTHORITY as well as the AUTHORITY from the Apostles' teaching, to canonize certain letters into what became the Bible.

So, from a biblical point of view, Mr. Wallis, the sisters are wrong and the Vatican - the Magisterium - is right.