I think that our jubilation re the closing of the cafeteria may have been a little premature.
If we follow O'Leary's interpretation, that would certainly seem to be the case; but I'm convinced (contra Vree, by the way) that we haven't seen the substance of the Benedict XVI papacy for what it is yet. The Eucharistic Congress, for example, was something he inherited from JPII. Certainly not Levada. That's not where to look. Rather, notice how he's aligning his interpretation of Vatican II vis-a-vis the whirlwind we've inherited. Look HERE, for example.
That black and straight reminds me of a line from a little girl in the movie "Airplane."
What does it matter if the cafeteria is closed, if it only serves one kind of food, and there is only one line?
Pray! Hope! Sursum Corda!
Au contraire, it seems that Pope Benedict will add a new line in the cafeteria for the traditionalists.
Benedict has not spoken up on justice issues -- he has muted the voice of the Church on this central concern of the Gospel, at a time when the Western world is gathering forces to end poverty. It is a disgrace that Bono and Bob Geldof are more present on this front than the Vicar of Christ.
For a true display of orthodox heartlessness, see Dreadnought's statements on abortion on his site, especially in bullying exchanges with the following person http://themuriels.blogspot.com/ (another disgruntled ex-dreadnoughter).
Pontifications have decided thay they do not want me to post there any more (my posts are deleted). Instead a "Seminarian Eric Giunta" is dealing quite effectively with the bullying Michael Liccione on the topic of the change in magisterial teaching on religious liberty. Warning, Eric, you too will be deleted before long. These people have no interest in reason or truth.
Benedict has not spoken up on justice issues ...
"Spirit," I'm sure His Holiness is well-informed and well-concerned about third-world poverty issues, perhaps even more so than ourselves. Robert Knudsen warned us in the late 1970's, however, that "peace and justice" would soon become a mantra of the left for their concerns; and indeed it has. Certainly a good bit of what mean by 'justice' is full recognition by the Church (with its blessing) of same-sex relationships, ordination of women, and such -- as well as the quasi-Marxist preoccupations of liberation theology, and so forth. The problem is that such an agenda, where it has had opportunity for realization, has never led to 'justice' but to even deeper repression and enslavement than one could have envisioned before. But I suppose you deny that your notion of 'justice' could gain anything from what JII or Benedict XVI had to say?
These people have no interest in reason or truth.
You're referring to Al Kimel, who sacrificed his cushy job as an ECUSA priest because of his convictions about the truth of the claims of the Catholic Church. I would caution a trifle less presumption. Could it be that he and some of his readers perceive the shoe to be on the other foot? And, if so, should we automatically assume that they, and they alone, are the ones doing the bullying and subordinating of truth to personal agendas?
Father O'Leary:
I think you are about as wrong as anyone calling themselves a Catholic can be. But I admire your intelligence and erudition and I enjoy reading your exchanges.
I'm sorry you have been effectively banned at Pontifications. I hope you won't ever be banned here. I feel sure that young Christopher wouldn't ban you at his site, the Ratzingerian spirit is too strong there! (And I don't mean that ironically.) If I were a blogger, you would always be welcome on my site. I am always happy to find you in a comments section.
God bless.
JPII spoke a lot about social justice, poverty, world hunger. BXVI has been much less strong. JPII had as much horror of capitalism as of Marxism, but BXVI seems totally flaccid when it comes to social critique. And by the way this has nothing whatever to do with the issues of homosexuality etc that you absurdly tack onto it.
On peace and justice issues, may I quote some critical remarks of Bruce Duncan CSsR:
At a Synod on the Eucharist, what could be more obvious than Christ’s call to share our bread with the hungry? Yet where was the overwhelming and urgent endorsement of global efforts to eradicate hunger and the worst poverty?
The issue points to the fact that the episcopal leadership in the Catholic Church as a whole is not articulating powerfully how the love of God must inspire, stimulate and insist on love for our neighbour in distress, particularly in the struggle for social justice. As the noted US Catholic social commentator, Professor John T. Pawlikowski, wrote after attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in early 2005: ‘I kept asking myself where are the religious leaders that are currently addressing the issues of global poverty, AIDS, ecology, etc. with the gusto and force of some of the political leaders who addressed Davos’.
In the year 2000, 189 countries signed the Millennium Declaration committing them to halve the number of people in hunger and the most acute poverty (living on less than US$1 a day) by 2015. This reflected intense planning and research over many years by hundreds of development experts coordinated through the United Nations. The eight Millennium Development Goals set clear targets to achieve.
Just imagine the difference it could make to international relations and the dialogue among the major religions if the whole world, with the vigorous support of the richer countries, focused its energies and resources on alleviating hunger and poverty everywhere. This would send a much more humane and appealing message than any pre-emptive strikes or wars for democracy.
No doubt, there will be critics of aspects of the Goals and room for improvements, but the general intention behind them is profoundly moral, and an astonishing sign of the times, of practical solidarity on a world scale. We have never seen anything like this before in history. Most of the work must be done in developing countries themselves of course. However, this effort to reduce hunger and poverty rapidly is likely to fail unless public opinion swings more strongly behind the Millennium Goals, and forces governments in richer countries to make available the needed funds and resources.
As Pope John Paul II said on World Food Day, 16 October 2003: ‘How can we keep silent when confronted by the enduring drama of hunger and extreme poverty, in an age where humanity, more than ever, has the capacity for a just sharing of resources?’ And in his World Day of Peace message in 2000, John Paul insisted that the poverty of billions of men and women is ‘the one issue that most challenges our human and Christian consciences’. He repeatedly called for a vast mobilisation of social conscience so that the world will support the effort behind the Millennium Goals.
Continuing Duncan's remarks:
However it is not yet clear how closely Pope Benedict will follow John Paul II in his advocacy of efforts to tackle world hunger, and specifically through the Millennium Development Goals. Benedict has seemed hesitant or uncertain at key moments, notably when the eyes of the world were fixed on the meeting of the leaders of the G-8 most important world economies at Gleneagles in Scotland in July 2005. One cannot imagine John Paul II missing such an opportunity to throw all his moral weight behind these efforts with a landmark public statement or gesture. Yet Benedict sent only a very brief message through Cardinal Sodano, Vatican Secretary of State, to Cardinal Keith Patrick O’Brien, archbishop of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh. It supported debt reduction for the heavily indebted poor countries and called for ‘a more just distribution of the world’s goods’. Given the unprecedented world attention, the Pope’s message greatly disappointed many, but they wished to give Benedict, who was new to his role, more time to find his feet to lead on these issues. ...
Benedict is rightly concerned about moral relativism in western culture, but the irony about the Millennium Development Goals is that they are fleshing out in very concrete terms the objective requirements of the common good, and meeting with a widespread and enthusiastic reception. Surely this is fertile ground for a fresh and lively conversation about the objective ground of moral norms, bypassing condemnations of relativism expressed in abstruse philosophical language. It would be an immense service both to western culture and the poorest countries if Benedict could help promote this conversation, which is so concerned about the future of human wellbeing and values. The opportunity could easily be lost.
Part of the task for Pope Benedict will be to relate the Synod on the Eucharist to the writings of his predecessors, especially Pope Paul VI’s 1975 encyclical, Evangelii Nuntiandi, which talked of the Gospel message in terms of liberation. The Redemption that Christ offers is not simply a spiritual deliverance, but ‘liberation from everything that oppresses man but which is above all liberation from sin and the Evil One, in the joy of knowing God…’ (#9). ....
[Edited for length. -- PP]
... The Church, as the Bishops repeated, has the duty to proclaim the liberation of millions of human beings, many of whom are her own children – the duty of assisting the birth of this liberation, of giving witness to it, or ensuring that it is complete. This is not foreign to evangelization (#30).
Between evangelization and human liberation – development and liberation – there are in fact profound links… since one cannot dissociate the plan of creation from the plan of Redemption. .... (#31)
[Edited for length. --PP]
More from Duncan:
Deus caritas est reiterates standard Catholic views on these issues, but in very cursory fashion, and largely avoids the major economic questions connected with equity and globalisation. ...
In his message for Lent 2006, Benedict again highlighted ‘our responsibility towards the poor’ by quoting Pope Paul VI that the ‘scandal of underdevelopment was an outrage against humanity’. Paul denounced the ‘lack of material necessities for those without the minimum essential for life, the moral deficiencies of those who are mutilated by selfishness’, along with ‘oppressive social structures’, exploitation and ‘unjust transactions’. Benedict continued: ‘Thus, the “gaze” of Christ upon the crowds impels us to affirm the true content of this “complete humanism” that, according to Paul VI, consists in the “fully-rounded development of the whole man and of all men”.’ Again he stressed that the primary contribution of the Church is not in supplying technical solutions, but in educating consciences. ‘In the face of the terrible challenge of poverty afflicting so much of the world’s population, indifference and self-centred isolation stand in stark contrast to the “gaze” of Christ. Living the Gospel means bearing ‘the burden of the material and spiritual needs’ of our neighbours. Elsewhere the Pope stressed that the commitment to promote peace was part of the Church’s evangelising mission, and he urged bishops to be ‘prophets of justice and peace.’
This is fine as far as it goes, but it suggests a lack of confidence in addressing these issues in a more substantial way, instead largely reiterating the views of Paul VI. ...
[Edited for length. -- PP]
absolutely central to the authentic proclamation of the gospel… This stands in sharp contrast to the emphasis on human liberation through social commitment as part of the very core of the genuine gospel preaching and evangelization in such documents as the 1971 Synod of Bishops’ statement on “Justice in the World” and Pope Paul VI’s apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi.’ [Edited for length.-- PP]
The article I have quoted from was commissioned for The Japan Mission Journal, forthcoming.
I have met Bruno Forte on several occasions in Rome and find him a deeply impressive figure. I wonder what those morally blinded by the Bush administration will say when Forte, beloved of John Paul II and his successor, himself becomes Pope?
Here is just one extract on the Iraq War from this veritable Vesuvius of Christian eloquence:
"Barbarity has won. With the same logic with which the Sharon government reacts to the criminal brutality of Palestinian terrorism with military actions that have all the character of state terrorism, the Bush administration strikes at the tyrant Saddam with the atrocity of a war that not only has no ethical justification, but also deeply wounds international order and frighteningly isolates from the civilized world America and its supporters in the mad adventure of war. The fact that our country has been numbered among the latter by the United States government, unfortunately without prompting any denial, particularly saddens Italians....
[P]erhaps [the most] most devastating consequence of this war is in consciences. It demonstrates the triumph of arrogance, the brutality of the law of vengeance guiding relations among peoples, the answer to the barbarity of a bloody regime with the barbarity of violent use of weapons of mass destruction at the expense of an entire population. With what courage will the American administration combat the already extensive violence within the United States? ..."
[Edited for length. --PP]
Poor Rev. Kimel may have to leave the RCC soon, for the same reason he left the ECUSA, if the following story is anything to go by: http://www.kreuz.net/bookentry.319.html
[Edited for irrelevance to topic of post and impertinence. -- PP]
Yes, "Spirit", you and your Modernist friends have apparently "won" the conquest of Holy Church. But only apparently...
I thought there was a rule against comment-bombing...
"Spirit,"
I know that Jeff welcomed your comments above, as also do I. But let's not get carried away. Please try to be mindful of others who may not be so enthusiastic about your "carpet bombing" approach to issues. It may be impressive (shock and awe?) but not very polite.
In most of your comments you address issues of social justice, poverty, world hunger, which, you say, Benedict has neglected. Then you state that this "has nothing whatever to do with the issues of homosexuality etc that you absurdly tack onto it." Ahh, but it does. It has every bit as much to do with that as the disconnect between your professed concern for issues of social justice, poverty and hunger and your striking indifference to the social injustice of the abortion holocaust taking place under our noses. Dot the "i's" ... the connections are all there. When there's nothing left to the Gospel of repentance from sin and salvation from damnation, all that's left is the social gospel as interpreted by political liberalism. There's nothing wrong with concern for social justice. But when that concern is coupled with your dissident agenda of Vatican bashing and promotion of homoerotica and blissful ignorance of the abortion holocaust, there's something amiss.
Charles R Williams,
Actually, the cafeteria currently has two lines. Alas, the trad line is usually found in the alleyway leading up to the back door of the kitchen.
Still, that's preferable to Fr Joe's ambition, which I suspect is to transform the whole operation into a shopping mall-style food court.
"20. Februar 2006 11:25
Does Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna bless blessings for same-sex couples?"
Good question I suppose, darn.
This article (Link provided by ‘Spirit’) disturbed and sort of ruined my day. What a bad joke.
"Fr. Faber believes that his views "are based on solid Catholic ground [...]"
Oh no, now we need a Congregation for Disordered Clergy to issue an explanatory document.
He "believes that his views "are based on solid Catholic ground"". - Possible translation: 'they can't catch me, naa, na, na, naa, naa!'
"During the interview the priest explicitly welcomed "people with homosexual inclinations to receive a blessing for their longing for love"."
(Uncensored, possibly crude, probably ‘unchristian’ thoughts from Paul): What? How confusing. Longing for love? What does THAT mean?! What sort of 'love', Padre Bozo/ Fr. Faber? Why are your words so ambiguous and evasive? What kind of foul and twisted (i.e., disordered) 'joke' are you playing here? I think I know, and I fear the worst. The Revenge of the Devilish Liberal Clowns, Episode II - You cannot keep a bad clown down. Beware, Coming to a church near you.
(To be continued).
==
(Continued)….
"The rector of the Cathedral admitted that his invitation to the "gay community" did cause some opposition among Catholics. In a phone-call he was accused of promoting perversion by blessing sinful people."
Sure, invite the entire "gay community”, why not? From the noise, it seems like over half their activists are in the Church already. I suppose the "gay community” needs salvation like the rest of the world. But who knows what rector Fr. Faber really had in mind. He said, “homosexuals are no “outlaws” but “human beings like you and I, who often suffer badly from their orientation””. Umm, okay?… I guess??, but what is the point?
I am very glad and not surprised to read that there was "some opposition among [faithful and loyal] Catholics" to the event, and that the rect..um, ooops, I meant rector, "was accused of promoting perversion by blessing sinful people".
"But Fr. Faber is not aware of any guilt: "After all, I bless sinful people in every Mass“, he said."
Without guilt, or did he mean shame. Have mercy. How seemingly smug of him. Was he blessing the ‘sin’, and/or same-sex couples/marriages? The perfect crime? Whatever. What a cunning and bad joke on the Church, ha, ha. Fr. Faber, please speak clearly you outlaw clown, IF that is what you are. If not, sorry: but still, what a pastoral plague and mistake. The damage is done; I hope it does not catch on. I hope this whole thing was a misunderstanding and misinterpretation. I confess I honestly do have a longing for greater orthodoxy and some real peace and sanity in the Catholic Church. I wish Pope Benedict XVI would close the cafeteria, stop the circus, hire some better, serious, responsible staff, and improve the menu.
==
"...hire some better, serious, responsible staff..."
Dear Cardinal Schönborn
I heard the disturbing news about what happened at the Stephansdom. Please check that job position title and description again, just in case somebody wrote 'wrecker', instead of 'rector', etc.
Were you asleep, or perhaps ill? I expected better, based on past performance and work. Please explain what happened. Were you tricked? You will hear from me soon. We need to talk.
I trust you have directed Fr. Faber to desist, and have removed him as rector. Please be certain to advise him that his homosexual 'Blessing Ceremony for Lovers' was not what my Encyclical was about. I am not laughing.
I am sending an exorcist to Vienna.
Signed:
Benedict
==
Abortion is indeed not one of the topics I write about, any more than are euthanasia, capital punishment, etc. I did write a piece on "The French Bishops on Abortion" twenty six years ago. Apart from my personal lack of expertise on a very difficult issue, it has become impossible to talk about abortion in a reasonable manner, since as Louis Dupre points out, we are dealing with a clash of absolutes. To refer casually to women who have abortions as "murderers" queers the pitch. The right wing, by their hyperbole, exacerbate every problem they touch, as the Terry Schiavo affair showed clearly. I think anyone who wants to talk about abortion for moral and humanitarian reasons rather than for ideological axe-grinding would be well advised to listen the the voices of women. I have not done so, and I am not able to speak with any insight. I do deplore, however, the "tough luck" attitude of many Catholic men to women who are in a position where they must choose between an abortion and raising a fatherless child in poverty. How much money have you contibuted to helping such women?
Personally, I do not think any man is in a position to be self-righteous about abortion. Many politicians who make a career out of pro-life have themselves paid for abortions.
Connecting dots, were I better informed, I could connect the abortion holocaust in Latin America with the poverty there; abortion is reportedly far more common in Latin America than in the USA. In neocon talk about abortion, poverty, one of the major causative factors, is never mentioned.
Here is a piece on abortion in Argentina. http://www.hrw.org/women/argentina/
I hope that one may agree or disagree with this article without any impugning of the basic questions of justice and poverty on which there is massive consensus between church doctrine on the one hand and secular agencies on the other.
The Revenge of the Devilish Canadian Liberal Clowns: 'Nineteen priests denounce the Vatican's opposition to same-sex marriage and its refusal to allow gay men into the Catholic priesthood.' Regarding so-called 'gay rights', and the 'gay community agenda': from my perspective, it seems like far too many of their activists and supporters are in the Church. These people have no shame. Beware, Coming to a church near you. Their objective: to reopen the cafeteria.
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjo...59946a1&
k=57284
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/
...2706priests.htm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/s...PStory/
National
==
It is a call for dialogue. Will it be greeted with an inquisitorial crackdown? I note that Dreadnought, who is openly gay, has to deal with a huge flood of email from suffering gay Catholics, including seminarians. Why do such people not come to their priests? Because their priests cannot be open about homosexuality, cannot practise open dialogue, cannot -- of course -- be open about their own sexuality -- so people do not come to them. The Church is failing in its pastoral presence by valuing its own undeveloped doctrinal stances over an open and dialogal quest for truth,
Beware the ever-totalitarian dictatorship of relativism that wears the mantle of compassion. Ever was it so: call to witness J.J. Rousseau's slogan, "We must compel them [those who disagree with us] to be free."
Fr Joe laments:
"Why do such people not come to their priests? Because their priests cannot be open about homosexuality, cannot practise open dialogue, cannot -- of course -- be open about their own sexuality -- so people do not come to them."
A diminishing number of priests, one hopes a majority, will not, alas, tell them what they want to hear. They will not tell "people" that their sexuality is normal, wholesome, and conducive to endless good cheer and incredible fashion sense. They will instead tell "people" what priests have told "people" throughout the Church's history: that homosexual acts are sinful, and that "people" who engage in them, with or without collars, risk final banishment to the Sulphur Pit of Style and Verve.
O Canada News summary: Archbishop André Gaumond appears to want to keep the Cafeteria open; but Canon Lawyer Peter Vere wants it shut down.
==
"Sherbrooke Archbishop André Gaumond, who is also the president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, said he wasn't surprised that the 19 priests had decided to go public with their opinion. [...]
"I'm not very happy with the means, to have a public declaration, a public article in the newspaper on a Sunday morning to say, 'We priests are not in accord with our church,'" he added.
"I'm not very happy with that, but it's not a reason to throw them out of the church.""
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/
n...ests060227.html
==
"Canon Lawyer Peter Vere told LifeSiteNews.com that the situation is now beyond local bishops and that the faithful should contact the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to express their concerns. [...] Vere said, "It's no longer just a scandal for a particular diocese. It is a scandal for lay people who are legitimately confused by the antics of these priests, who will likely mistake silence (on the part of the bishops) for consent.""
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006...b/
06022706.html
==
"Archbishop André Gaumond appears to want to keep the Cafeteria open"
I might be wrong. Maybe the Archbishop just wants to give the poor dissenter priests a bit more time, before he helps Benedict XVI close the Cafeteria and lock the doors.
==
"A diminishing number of priests, one hopes a majority, will not, alas, tell them what they want to hear. They will not tell "people" that their sexuality is normal, wholesome, and conducive to endless good cheer and incredible fashion sense. They will instead tell "people" what priests have told "people" throughout the Church's history: that homosexual acts are sinful, and that "people" who engage in them, with or without collars, risk final banishment to the Sulphur Pit."
This does not address the issue. Dreadnought, who claims to adhere entirely to the teachings of Benedict XVI, draws a host of people seeking his advice. Priests who say the same thing as Dreadnought do not. Why is this? Because people know that Dreadnought is speaking from the heart and knows what he is talking about, whereas there is no way of knowing this in the case of the clergy, who are muzzled and forbidden to speak openly and frankly about any sexual matter.
Of course no Catholic priest would speak in the contemptuous and demeaning manner Roister thinks is Catholic. Let him read the Catechism to see how wrong he is. His attitude will prompt the Church toward a more mature and developed teaching, as we already see happening daily (in the utterances not only of priests like the Quebec 19 but of highly placed Roman moral theologians, Bishops and Cardinals).
The priests' letter says nothing new. It is a call for dialogue -- many priests, including myself, have made that call (sometimes in more aggressive tones) over the last thirty years.
Here is a quote from the letter:
Quant à la compassion qui imprégnait toute la démarche de Jésus sur terre, y a-t-il là quelque trace? Pas un paragraphe, pas une phrase dans votre mémoire qui prenne en compte la discrimination historique exercée à l'endroit des personnes homosexuelles, et la tragédie de leur exclusion sociale ou ecclésiale ressentie profondément par un grand nombre d'entre elles. C'est pourtant dans cette souffrance humaine que s'enracine toute la quête de reconnaissance sociale du mouvement gai dans ses multiples expressions. N'y a-t-il pas là de quoi être perplexes?
The Canadian bishops are more modest than in the past, of course, yet to many they will still appear to be giving themselves haughty airs of superiority.
Mgr Berthelet: «Je ne pense pas qu'on puisse dire des couples homosexuels qu'ils apportent quelque chose d'irremplaçable à la société et qu'ils construisent la société». Who appointed him an expert on such a delicate sociological issue? Where is his research? dialogue? consultation? Creeping infallibility, indeed!
Mgr Turcotte: «Il y a aujourd'hui, du côté des lesbiennes, des gens qui ont des enfants qui n'ont jamais connu de père. Quelles en seront les conséquences ? Je n'en sais rien. Tout ce que je sais, c'est que j'ai lu beaucoup de traités sur la psychologie dans ma vie, et je pense que dans la société d'aujourd'hui, on reconnaît que l'absence du père est un gros problème.» Amateur psychologizing is not a good basis for blocking people's freedoms without the slightest attempt to dialogue with them.
Dialogue all you want, Fr Joe, but the bottom line remains the bottom line.
The trouble with endless geysers of "dialogue" is that they tend to spill over into permissiveness, into an obfuscating of the objective sinfulness of the act. Tolerance of the "style" and indulgence of the attitudinal paraphenalia -- all of those unintended [?] consequences of endless dialogue-without-resolution -- sooner or later becomes acceptance of the sin. "Dialogue" then centers on how to explain it away. Then we have doctrinal "interpretation" that resembles a taffy-pull. It is conceivable, at least, that priests who are homosexual though not sexually active have a vested interest in dragging out such "dialogue": this makes them unsuitable advisors in this matter, for the heart from which they speak may well be tainted by a desire to explain away the sin.
In the end, "compassion" and "dialogue" cannot be used as de facto denials of the reality of the sin. To do so is to indulge the delusions of the sinner, and actually work against the possibility of his salvation.
The Church has refused to dialogue about contraception. knowing full well that its teaching is ignored by the vast majority of the faithful. It is going the same with with homosexuality. Dreadnought offers to dialogue with troubled gay Catholics. Do you know ANY bishop or priest who offers to do the same? And is this really a christlike attitude/
Spirit - I do in fact know a priest, in fact a whole parish, that does actively not only dialogue with, but also minister to, the gay members of the parish. For obvious reasons I'll not identify the parish or its clergy. Thx.
Commenting by HaloScan
