I understand Pope Francis' effort to make the Church more "user-friendly", but I'm not a big fan of how he's going about it.
Pope Francis seems to couch his language in the typical political jargon of the progressives, both within and without the Church. Thus, when he makes off-the-cuff comments about homosexuality, women's ordination, the liturgy, etc., it's couched in a nuanced manner that makes progressives rejoice and traditionalists cringe.
The bad thing is, his comments leave a lot to be explained in a more thorough manner. This unwinding of his thoughts usually gets done by the progressive media, furthered along by those progressive priests, nuns, and laymen in the Church who have made it a goal to take down the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church a brick at a time.
For example, when the Holy Father says that "we cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible.", and that "it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.", the public response is amazing. Those on the left interpret it to mean that abortion, gay marriage, and the use of artificial contraception is okay. Those on the right are left trying to explain away what the pope was really trying to say, within the greater context of traditional Church thought.
Is this good for the Church? I have my doubts. It seems to make past efforts at promoting authentic Church teaching on such hot-button topics futile. It raised even more doubt, and it gives those on the left political cover to continue in their obstinate sin.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Denial isn't just a river.
The following snippet from a TIME article has me a little upset:
Father Greg Reynolds of Melbourne, Australia found out last week that Pope Francis had excommunicated him, and he was shocked. [There have been on-going talks between former priest Reynolds and the Holy See for over a year. Reynolds refused to uphold core Christian beliefs, and participated in the desecration of the Holy Eucharist. Why he was "shocked" is beyond me] Granted, Reynolds holds less than traditional views in the Catholic Church ["less than traditional"? Osama bin Laden held "less than traditional" views of the Catholic Church...] —he supports women’s ordination and gay marriage—but Pope Francis has more than hinted lately that the Church needs to adopt a new tone towards those social issues. “I am very surprised that this order has come under his watch; it seems so inconsistent with everything else he has said and done,” Reynolds told the National Catholic Reporter, a widely read source for Catholic news.
Excommunication is a severe penalty in the Catholic Church. Today it is the church’s harshest punishment, and it means an individual can no longer participate in the sacraments or worship ceremonies, much less ever officiate a mass again. Reynolds’ letter of excommunication itself contained no official explanation for his excommunication. It accused Reynolds of heresy and claimed he had violated the sacrament of the Eucharist. [Maybe he was excommunicated because at one of Reynolds’ ‘Inclusive Catholics’ Masses, he allowed an attendee to give a Host to his dog. Or maybe it was because he supports so-called "gay marriage" and women's "ordination", both of which are heretical. One wonders why he would want to stay within the confines of Holy Mother Church while espousing these views.]
Reynolds told the National Catholic Reporter that he also believes he was excommunicated because of his support for the gay community. He has officiated mass weddings for gay couples, even though he claimed they were unofficial, and he justified his actions as a call for reform. “I still love the church and am committed to it,” he told the Standard newspaper, arguing he was trying “to help highlight some of the failing and limitations.”
Pope Francis has made waves lately for advocating for necessary reforms in the Catholic Church [some of which are long-overdue], especially when it comes to gays and women. While the Supreme Pontiff does have to sign off on excommunications, Francis may not be as directly responsible for Reynolds’ dismissal as it might initially appear [trying to give the Holy Father a way out with the left-wing progressives in the Church, I see...]. Excommunication processes tend to take a long time, even years, and Reynolds was likely already tagged for removal before Francis took office in March. His non-traditional views stem back years. He preached in support of women’s ordination in 2010, resigned as a priest in the Melbourne Archdiocese in 2011, and yet continued to practice as a priest without the authority and backing of the church. He then founded a group called “Inclusive Catholics” for people who also support women’s ordination and gay marriage [yet he was still "shocked"].
However, the announcement serves as a reminder that despite the recent excitement over Pope Francis’ reforming attitudes and calls for increased compassion for women and gays, he has not changed any actual Catholic doctrine, nor is he likely to do so [ can I get an "AMEN"!]. Women’s ordination and gay marriage are still closed doors [and will continue to be so] . The Pope, as they say, is still Catholic.
Pope Francis Excommunicates Priest Who Backed Women’s Ordination and Gays
Despite his reforming attitude, Francis still supports traditional doctrine
Father Greg Reynolds of Melbourne, Australia found out last week that Pope Francis had excommunicated him, and he was shocked. [There have been on-going talks between former priest Reynolds and the Holy See for over a year. Reynolds refused to uphold core Christian beliefs, and participated in the desecration of the Holy Eucharist. Why he was "shocked" is beyond me] Granted, Reynolds holds less than traditional views in the Catholic Church ["less than traditional"? Osama bin Laden held "less than traditional" views of the Catholic Church...] —he supports women’s ordination and gay marriage—but Pope Francis has more than hinted lately that the Church needs to adopt a new tone towards those social issues. “I am very surprised that this order has come under his watch; it seems so inconsistent with everything else he has said and done,” Reynolds told the National Catholic Reporter, a widely read source for Catholic news.
Excommunication is a severe penalty in the Catholic Church. Today it is the church’s harshest punishment, and it means an individual can no longer participate in the sacraments or worship ceremonies, much less ever officiate a mass again. Reynolds’ letter of excommunication itself contained no official explanation for his excommunication. It accused Reynolds of heresy and claimed he had violated the sacrament of the Eucharist. [Maybe he was excommunicated because at one of Reynolds’ ‘Inclusive Catholics’ Masses, he allowed an attendee to give a Host to his dog. Or maybe it was because he supports so-called "gay marriage" and women's "ordination", both of which are heretical. One wonders why he would want to stay within the confines of Holy Mother Church while espousing these views.]
Reynolds told the National Catholic Reporter that he also believes he was excommunicated because of his support for the gay community. He has officiated mass weddings for gay couples, even though he claimed they were unofficial, and he justified his actions as a call for reform. “I still love the church and am committed to it,” he told the Standard newspaper, arguing he was trying “to help highlight some of the failing and limitations.”
Pope Francis has made waves lately for advocating for necessary reforms in the Catholic Church [some of which are long-overdue], especially when it comes to gays and women. While the Supreme Pontiff does have to sign off on excommunications, Francis may not be as directly responsible for Reynolds’ dismissal as it might initially appear [trying to give the Holy Father a way out with the left-wing progressives in the Church, I see...]. Excommunication processes tend to take a long time, even years, and Reynolds was likely already tagged for removal before Francis took office in March. His non-traditional views stem back years. He preached in support of women’s ordination in 2010, resigned as a priest in the Melbourne Archdiocese in 2011, and yet continued to practice as a priest without the authority and backing of the church. He then founded a group called “Inclusive Catholics” for people who also support women’s ordination and gay marriage [yet he was still "shocked"].
However, the announcement serves as a reminder that despite the recent excitement over Pope Francis’ reforming attitudes and calls for increased compassion for women and gays, he has not changed any actual Catholic doctrine, nor is he likely to do so [ can I get an "AMEN"!]. Women’s ordination and gay marriage are still closed doors [and will continue to be so] . The Pope, as they say, is still Catholic.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Same Old Same Old
While watching and reading the latest news on the upcoming papal conclave, I've noticed that the major American news outlets (AP, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC) all seem to go to the most progressive-minded "catholics" for their perspectives on the next Pope.
Most of them come from ultra-progressive rags such as the National Catholic Reporter, The Tablet, America magazine, Commonweal magazine, etc.
I would find it hard to believe that the same news outlets would look for opinions on the U.S. presidential election from the likes of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or Vladimir Putin.
These so-called "catholic" publications tend to employ numerous public dissenters, such as Richard McBrien, Thomas Reese, Joan Chittister, etc.
It seems that FoxNews is alone in it's object coverage, preferring to focus on the positive aspects of the papal election, and not descend into muckraking and partisan religious politics.
Most of them come from ultra-progressive rags such as the National Catholic Reporter, The Tablet, America magazine, Commonweal magazine, etc.
I would find it hard to believe that the same news outlets would look for opinions on the U.S. presidential election from the likes of Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or Vladimir Putin.
These so-called "catholic" publications tend to employ numerous public dissenters, such as Richard McBrien, Thomas Reese, Joan Chittister, etc.
It seems that FoxNews is alone in it's object coverage, preferring to focus on the positive aspects of the papal election, and not descend into muckraking and partisan religious politics.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Personal Responsibility vs. Other People's Money
After watching two nights of the Democratic National Convention, and a week after the RNC in Tampa, I've come to this conclusion: it's all about Personal Responsibility vs. OPM (Other People's Money).
The Republicans will tell you that there's a finite amount of money available to fund the government, therefore, we must be fiscally frugal, and share in the overall responsibility, especially those who benefit most from government dollars (a hand-up).
The Democrats, on the other hand, will tell you that debt is not an issue. The DNC is willing to throw money at every problem, no matter what the consequences (a hand-out), in order to garner the most votes.
Republicans believe that those who benefit from taxpayer money the most, should pay their fair share in return.
Sadly, 47% of all Americans are on some sort of government assistance. They tend to vote for whoever is best for them (i.e., whoever promises to give them the most free stuff).
Difficult economic decisions in areas like MediCare, Social Security, Military, etc., can't keep getting kicked down the road. We will drown in our own debt if we don't stand up and address the problem of overspending.
The Republicans will tell you that there's a finite amount of money available to fund the government, therefore, we must be fiscally frugal, and share in the overall responsibility, especially those who benefit most from government dollars (a hand-up).
The Democrats, on the other hand, will tell you that debt is not an issue. The DNC is willing to throw money at every problem, no matter what the consequences (a hand-out), in order to garner the most votes.
Republicans believe that those who benefit from taxpayer money the most, should pay their fair share in return.
Sadly, 47% of all Americans are on some sort of government assistance. They tend to vote for whoever is best for them (i.e., whoever promises to give them the most free stuff).
Difficult economic decisions in areas like MediCare, Social Security, Military, etc., can't keep getting kicked down the road. We will drown in our own debt if we don't stand up and address the problem of overspending.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Back to the Future.
In a recent article in the NcR, John Allen describes the current situation of the LCWR, and what their future may hold. In one of the online comments, a writer describes the members of the LCWR as "the backbone of the Catholic denomination."
I would hardly call the nuns of the LCWR the "backbone of the Catholic denomination". That may have held true 50+ years ago, but that "backbone" is now pushing a median age of 80, and most of those wonderful Catholic schools that operated under the aegis of women religious are now closed, due (in part) to teaching sisters becoming extinct.
If these great communities of strong women would've stayed committed to their corporate apostolates, continued living in viable communities, placing the Mass and Divine Office at the center of their prayer lives, things may be different today.
Instead, the vast majority of women religious belonging to the LCWR have gone astray, deciding instead to focus on politically-charged, left-leaning agendas, and all but abandoning their original charism of educating Catholic youth.
They've abandoned traditional spirituality in exchange for New Age philosophies, including the enneagram and labyrinths. They have discarded their habits (a symbol of poverty and sign of their community to one another) for polyester pantsuits.
None of this was even remotely recommended by the Second Vatican Council. Maybe George and Sister Joan are right. The LCWR should disband as the canonically-recognized representative of women religious, and continue on their path of self-destruction.
As a vital part of Catholic America, the LCWR is dead. Long-live the CMSWR!
I would hardly call the nuns of the LCWR the "backbone of the Catholic denomination". That may have held true 50+ years ago, but that "backbone" is now pushing a median age of 80, and most of those wonderful Catholic schools that operated under the aegis of women religious are now closed, due (in part) to teaching sisters becoming extinct.
If these great communities of strong women would've stayed committed to their corporate apostolates, continued living in viable communities, placing the Mass and Divine Office at the center of their prayer lives, things may be different today.
Instead, the vast majority of women religious belonging to the LCWR have gone astray, deciding instead to focus on politically-charged, left-leaning agendas, and all but abandoning their original charism of educating Catholic youth.
They've abandoned traditional spirituality in exchange for New Age philosophies, including the enneagram and labyrinths. They have discarded their habits (a symbol of poverty and sign of their community to one another) for polyester pantsuits.
None of this was even remotely recommended by the Second Vatican Council. Maybe George and Sister Joan are right. The LCWR should disband as the canonically-recognized representative of women religious, and continue on their path of self-destruction.
As a vital part of Catholic America, the LCWR is dead. Long-live the CMSWR!
Thursday, May 10, 2012
5 Lies regarding the LCWR Doctrinal Assessment
Well, it's been one week since the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released its 8-page Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR). Of course, the left is having it's usual spittle-flecked nutty over the whole thing.
Sadly, many of the typically level-headed reports are falling prey to some of the blather coming from the progressive wing of the Church. The top 5 errors (or lies, depending on your viewpoint) go something like this:
1. The evil bishops (men) are just trying to push around the nuns (women) and silence them.
It's not about men vs. women. The bishops are the true Magisterium of the Church. They teach the faith in an authoritative manner. This is doctrine. While other men (and women) can collaborate with the bishops, they have the final say.
2. It's all about the LCWR supporting "Obamacare", much to the chagrin of the US bishops.
The Doctrinal Assessment followed a Visitation of ALL women religious in the United States, not just the members of the LCWR. This Visitation was announced in 2008, while George W. Bush was still President. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if those involved in the Visitation to into account the recent comments by members of the LCWR over and against the US bishops, creating their own "Magisterium of Nuns", and diminishing the bishops' authentic role as shepherds of the Church.
3. The LCWR is too busy with it's "social justice" agenda to focus on the pro-life mission of the Church.
Not only have the sisters of the LCWR lost their focus regarding abortion, contraception, etc., they actively OPPOSE the bishops and Church doctrine. Nuns have even worked FOR abortion clinics! A member of the Sisters of Providence in Terre Haute, IN, even commented that she gives out condoms at the health care clinic she works at.
4. The Church is misogynistic in it's view of women and the priesthood.
The members of the LCWR still think that the issue of women's ordination is up for discussion. Blessed Pope John Paul II ended all discussion, when he stated that it is a difinitive teaching of the Church that only men can be ordained ot the priesthood.
5. The bishops are meddling in the sisters' spirituality.
Spirituality that is based on enneagrams, labyrinths, and other New Age beliefs. You will be hard-pressed to find a conference sponsored by the LCWR that doesn't involved at least one of these. Absent from their "spirituality" is any link to the official worship of the Church: The Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours.
Also absent from these meetings are traditional spiritual prayers, such as the Rosary, Stations of the Cross, Divine Mercy Chaplet, Ignatian Exercises, etc.
Sadly, many of the typically level-headed reports are falling prey to some of the blather coming from the progressive wing of the Church. The top 5 errors (or lies, depending on your viewpoint) go something like this:
1. The evil bishops (men) are just trying to push around the nuns (women) and silence them.
It's not about men vs. women. The bishops are the true Magisterium of the Church. They teach the faith in an authoritative manner. This is doctrine. While other men (and women) can collaborate with the bishops, they have the final say.
2. It's all about the LCWR supporting "Obamacare", much to the chagrin of the US bishops.
The Doctrinal Assessment followed a Visitation of ALL women religious in the United States, not just the members of the LCWR. This Visitation was announced in 2008, while George W. Bush was still President. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if those involved in the Visitation to into account the recent comments by members of the LCWR over and against the US bishops, creating their own "Magisterium of Nuns", and diminishing the bishops' authentic role as shepherds of the Church.
3. The LCWR is too busy with it's "social justice" agenda to focus on the pro-life mission of the Church.
Not only have the sisters of the LCWR lost their focus regarding abortion, contraception, etc., they actively OPPOSE the bishops and Church doctrine. Nuns have even worked FOR abortion clinics! A member of the Sisters of Providence in Terre Haute, IN, even commented that she gives out condoms at the health care clinic she works at.
4. The Church is misogynistic in it's view of women and the priesthood.
The members of the LCWR still think that the issue of women's ordination is up for discussion. Blessed Pope John Paul II ended all discussion, when he stated that it is a difinitive teaching of the Church that only men can be ordained ot the priesthood.
5. The bishops are meddling in the sisters' spirituality.
Spirituality that is based on enneagrams, labyrinths, and other New Age beliefs. You will be hard-pressed to find a conference sponsored by the LCWR that doesn't involved at least one of these. Absent from their "spirituality" is any link to the official worship of the Church: The Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours.
Also absent from these meetings are traditional spiritual prayers, such as the Rosary, Stations of the Cross, Divine Mercy Chaplet, Ignatian Exercises, etc.
Misplaced accusations of misogyny
During this whole kerfuffle regarding the recently-announced results of the doctrinal assessment conducted on the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, we've heard numerous claims that this was a "misogynistic attack" on women. The loudest complainers then run off a list of all the good things that the women religious of the LCWR have done in the past.
Of course, this just deflects from the real issues of heresy and illicit/invalid liturgical celebrations that are part and parcel of many LCWR-sponsored events.
But was is routinely overlooked, is the fact that the Holy See ordered a visitation of all U.S. seminaries in 2005, similar to the visitation of the LCWR and CMSWR in 2009-2011. Lest we forget, the seminaries are ALL-MALE.
I don't remember hearing all the whining, screeching, etc. during the seminary visitation, or claims that the Holy See "hates men."
Of course, this just deflects from the real issues of heresy and illicit/invalid liturgical celebrations that are part and parcel of many LCWR-sponsored events.
But was is routinely overlooked, is the fact that the Holy See ordered a visitation of all U.S. seminaries in 2005, similar to the visitation of the LCWR and CMSWR in 2009-2011. Lest we forget, the seminaries are ALL-MALE.
I don't remember hearing all the whining, screeching, etc. during the seminary visitation, or claims that the Holy See "hates men."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)