Very interesting...

Someguy has info about the Installation Mass homily worth pondering.

No excerpting--go and read the whole thing.

Blogs for your perusal.

1. Jeff Culbreath has pulled up stakes, both in the real world and on-line. His new blog-home is Hallowed Ground. Go--visit. There's something worthwhile everyday, even if you've already read what's there.

BTW, keep doing business with Minuteman Printing. I passed out a couple of business cards recently, and the reaction to the parchment cards was, and I quote, "Cool."

2. Frequent commenter Yurodivi has Der Gottesnarr. I understand that's German, and that's certainly topical these days. Prod him into posting more often.

3. Finally, I stumbled across Marcus the Bard's place. He's British (always a plus), but even better, he describes himself as an "Old School Gamer -- AH, SPI, SJG, Classic GW, OD&D/1e AD&D."

Translation: "Avalon Hill, Simulations Publications, Inc. [I said I wouldn't cry...], Steve Jackson Games, Classic Gamma World, Old [or "Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal"] Dungeons and Dragons/1st Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons."

Further translation: "Hail, Fellow Geek--I salute you!"

I'll go so far as to say that we may have been separated at birth.

All of the above will be blogrolled when I steel my stomach for work on the ol' template again.

[Update: Marcvs is not British, but he's a New Yorker who lives in Britain, which is still cool. He also notes that Classic GW means "Classic Games Workshop" [a legendary British gaming publisher], and OD&D means "really old--as in Chainmail old--D&D." As in worth several hundred dollars a pop "really old." However, he does not entirely discount the separated at birth theory.]

You may have noticed, but I'm not usually able to be described as "upbeat."

Seriously.

If there's any descriptor that fits my mindset, it's "hopeful, but not optimistic." It only sounds paradoxical. Trust me, it's not.

So it is unusual for a news story to leave me heartened. But this one did.

The link is to the transcript of a roundtable of Catholic laity recently conducted by the Detroit News and occasioned by the election of Benedict XVI.

A diverse group, but in large measure mostly in agreement. And that's what's so heartening about it.

Read the whole thing.

Waiting for Popot.

[Update: Sorry--bad language alert. Should have been in originally, but it was a late, late evening post.]

I have a hypothesis about a certain strand of progressive Catholicism: all the screeching about the Pope and clericalism has turned them into the most expansive papal/clericalists around. They are the mirror image of what they hate. Though I am loathe to quote possibly-syphilitic German philosophers, Nietzsche was on to something when he warned against fighting monsters lest one become a monster in the process.

They don't want the clerical brotherhood abolished, they simply want a much larger pool of applicants from which to select.

Likewise, they don't hate the Papacy so much as want it to be a steamroller acting in their interests.

With that in mind, Fr. Charles Curran weighs in:

I grew up as a typical pre-Vatican II Catholic. I entered the seminary at 13 and became a priest 11 years later, never questioning church teachings. But

"Dear America: I never thought I'd be writing a letter like this to your forum. Though I was educated by nuns who savagely beat us with copies of the Baltimore Catechism whenever we asked questions, gave the wrong answer or exhaled without permission, my friends tell me I am very pastoral and theologically flexible. Even though I read the letters here with interest, I didn't think something like that could ever happen to me. Then, one day after the Council, I met the Spirit of Vatican II in the Rectory...."

as a moral theologian in the 1960s, I began to see things differently, ultimately concluding that Catholics, although they must hold on to the core doctrines of faith,

"As defined by me."

can and at times should dissent from the more peripheral teachings of the church.

"As defined by me."

Unfortunately, the leaders of the Catholic Church feel differently.

The temerity! Gosh, you might think they have some kind of teaching responsibility or something.

In the summer of 1986, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the powerful enforcer of doctrinal orthodoxy around the world,

Equipped with x-ray vision, heresy-crushing kung-fu grip, a death ray and an evil, taunting laugh.

concluded a seven-year investigation of my writings.

Seven years? Whatever else it is, a rush to judgment it ain't.

Pope John Paul II approved the finding that "one who dissents from the magisterium as you do is not suitable nor eligible to teach Catholic theology." Cardinal Ratzinger -- Now Pope Benedict XVI -- told the Catholic University of America to revoke my license to teach theology because of my "repeated refusal to accept what the church teaches. I was fired.

Imagine that--a Catholic employed in an official capacity actually has to believe all that s**t. Even though your average working Catholic doesn't have the luxury of repeatedly telling his employers to blow it out their ass, much less have seven years grace after doing so. The Long, Long Night of Charlie Curran is failing to moisten my eyes.

It was the first time an American Catholic theologian had been censured in this way.

"Your Yankee Academic Freedom Forcefield is no match for my Inquisition death ray, Herr Curran. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"

American Exceptionalism: It's Not Just For Politics Anymore.™

At issue was my dissent from church teachings on "the indissolubility of consummated sacramental marriage, abortion, euthanasia, masturbation, artificial contraception, premarital intercourse and homosexual acts," according to their final document to me.

The Gospel According to Free Willy. Quelle suprise.

It's true that I questioned the idea that such acts are always immoral and never acceptable (although I thought my dissent on these issues was quite nuanced).

Sen. Kerry's down with that.

Unfortunately, the Vatican — which was already moving toward greater discipline and orthodoxy — was having none of it.

"While I don't think much of papal infallibility, I myself am never wrong. Never. Ever."

Seven years earlier, it had punished the Swiss theologian Hans Küng because of his teachings on infallibility in the church. Later, Cardinal Ratzinger "silenced" Brazilian Franciscan Leonardo Boff, an advocate of liberation theology, for a year. Just recently, Ratzinger said U.S. Jesuit Roger Haight could not teach Catholic theology until he changed his understanding of the role of Jesus Christ.

Ah, yes: Haight, Boff and Kung. Respectively: "Jesus as dead body," "Jesus as Che Guevara," and "Jesus as Hans Kung."

Nope. No problems there.

Since 1986, no Catholic institution has offered to hire me.

"All I am left with is tenure and this lousy endowed chair at Southern Methodist University!

I mean, come on--METHODISTS?

It's the reputational equivalent of living in a refrigerator box, dammit!

WHEN WILL THE REPRESSION STOP?!?"

Although I remain a baptized Catholic and a Catholic priest — the pope and the cardinal did not move to have me defrocked — my case sent an unmistakable and unequivocal message to Catholics around the world

Don't flatter yourself, Padre. My cradle-Catholic wife had never even heard of you prior to this post and thought you were a member of the Rat Pack (her terminology, not mine).

I doubt that one in 15,000 of your American co-religionists have the faintest clue who you are, either.

"Uh--'Charles Curran'? 1980s?

Oh, wait: wasn't he that short bald power forward for the Sixers? The 'Round Mound of Rebound'? No?"

It's the fundamental lack of notoriety that's funny. After all, Fr. Curran wouldn't have had to go through five paragraphs of introducing himself if his "predicament" were all that well-known.

On a related note: here's a serious contender for the funniest religious book title ever: Holy Siege: The Year That Shook Catholic America. Deals in part with the Curran case.

Yeeaaaaaaaah--rocked the world, all right.

But, I suppose, "The Year That Led To Much Kvetching Amongst The Subscriber Base For The National Catholic Reporter" was less...felicitous. If much more true.

Oddly enough, it's long since been out of print.

that deviation would no longer be tolerated. Official Catholic teaching has always given the impression that the pope and bishops will not and cannot change moral teachings because these teachings are based on God's law.

Maybe...because they are?

Given his approach to morality, the wonder of it is that he didn't put God's law in scare quotes. I've seen no indication that he believes there is such a thing. This essay sure doesn't.

Certainly Pope Benedict XVI will insist upon the same approach.But it doesn't have to be that way. History shows that the Catholic Church has changed its moral teachings over the years on a number of issues (without admitting its previous position had been wrong). A very sorry page in Catholic history, for example, is the fact that for over 1,800 years the popes and the church did not condemn slavery.

Wrong.

Next?

And until the 17th century, popes, in the strongest terms, condemned loans with interest as violating God's law.

The secular world still condemns it--your state has usury laws. I guarantee it. It's still immoral to charge exorbitant interest on loans. The economic realities have shifted since the 1600s, altering the teaching accordingly. But the underlying premise is still valid.

Unless he'd care to pen an essay in defense of the morality of loansharking.

History is not the only argument for change in Catholic moral teachings. Catholics generally recognize that many (if not all) of Catholic moral teachings on specific issues belong to the category of "non-infallible" teachings.

So, "non-infallible" = "ignore"? Got it.

Despite the "creeping infallibilism" that seeks to put more and more teachings beyond question, the fact is that many moral issues are open for reinterpretation and rethinking.

"According to me."

Dramatic changes have occurred in some aspects of papal social teachings in the last two centuries. Pope Gregory XVI in an 1832 encyclical condemned freedom of conscience in society as an "absurd and erroneous teaching or rather madness." Pope Leo XIII in the 19th century condemned "the modern liberties" and opposed the equality and participation of citizens in civic and political life. The people, he wrote, are "the untutored multitude" that must "be controlled by the authority of law."

It is difficult to know where to begin, though it's important to note that social teachings are in play here, and he's doing a crapload of paraphrasing. "Freedom of conscience" as practiced in revolutionary France was something rightly to be feared, and the excesses associated with the condemned propositions were what disturbed the 19th Century Popes. Say what you will about Bl. Pius IX, seeing your friend murdered right in front of you by revolutionaries claiming to be the vanguard of progress and liberty might justifiably cause you to be jaundiced about the concepts.

And, at the risk of sounding like an elitist, Leo XIII had something of a point. Those Jay Leno bits asking college students who the Vice President is (and getting a correct answer rate of 10% on a good night) bother the hell out of me.

Vatican II, however, accepted religious liberty for all human beings. In dealing with civic, political and economic life, contemporary papal social teachings gives great importance to history and to the notion that social ideas can change with the times.

Social teachings. Again, watch the phraseology carefully. The phrase "three card Monte" applies here.

In these areas, church teachings now emphasize the freedom, equality and participation of the person, as well as a "relationality" model that sees people in multiple relationships with God, neighbors near and far, the Earth, and self. But in papal sexual ethics, an older methodology still prevails. Unchanging human nature and the eternal law of God, not historical development or the person understood in light of relationships, constitute the primary considerations.

The distinction is obvious, and I suspect Fr. Curran knows it: human organizations can and do change. Fallen human nature has not, and cannot. Hence Jesus Christ.

If the "historical developments" (read: corpse count and wholesale devaluation of human life at all levels) of the 20th Century did not and cannot convince you of this, nothing will.

The many people both inside and outside the Catholic Church who experience some dissonance between papal sexual and social teachings are right.

"People who think like me are the smartest people I know."

There is a different methodology at work in these two areas.

That's because different considerations and data (namely the written Word) are involved. This is not as difficult as the tenured exile would like it to be.

Some changes would logically occur in sexual teachings if these teachings employed the same methodology as used in papal social teachings. Likewise, papal sexual teachings, like social teachings, would not be able to claim absolute certitude on complex and specific issues.

I don't claim to be a Bible scholar, though I have studied much and am a voracious reader on things Biblical. Still, I don't claim to have encyclopedic knowledge. But even in my admittedly limited reading, I have yet to stumble across a theory that ascribes the writing of Leviticus to Gregory XIV, or Romans to John Paul II. Then again, I give the Mueslix sampler over at the Jesus Seminar a wide berth, so who knows what those guys are saying?

In other words, the teachings aren't subject to the whims of the current holder of the Chair of Peter. They aren't, to be blunt, his teachings to change. No Pope, deo gratias, has the power to overturn revelation. For a Catholic to argue otherwise is reasoning worthy of a Chick tract.

There are two possibilities here:

(1) He knows this, but he has a pulpit and is going to press an old grievance, bamboozling a laity that, on any given day, would see many of its members get creamed by a toaster in a religious knowledge contest.

(2) He actually believes the Pope can issue an edict reversing course on fundamental morality.

"Attention, laity. Now hear this: those Jews were way too repressed and primitive. Ditto Paul, who was probably a self-hating closet case. Anyhoo, go ahead and boff a sibling, or whatever, if that feels right to you. Use the Pill or something. That's what it's for. Or surf one-handed online in those special chatrooms. Be safe. That is all. Deus lo volt, and all that. This is Rocket Pope, signing off."

As amazing as it seems, it's (2). Fr. Curran, enlightened modern progressive that he is, has a concept of papal supremacy that would have turned the most eloquent ultramontanist into Keanu Reeves. "Whoa."

History reminds us that change in Catholic moral teachings always comes from the grass roots.

I don't know about that. If anything, it demonstrates that the changes so demanded involve an end to moral laxity, especially among clerics. History certainly demonstrates that grass roots action is the swiftest way to change the clerics themselves. Think "orthodox laity, Arian bishop."

Interviews with ordinary Catholics mourning the death of Pope John Paul II indicated that even those who admired and loved him strongly disagreed with some of his specific moral teachings. Even the staunch defenders of the papal condemnation of artificial contraception for spouses recognize that the vast majority of Catholics do not follow the pope.

Educated by the likes of Fr. Curran, we shouldn't be surprised.

That's my boy!

Leading our superb head pastor around at the parish potluck last January. More here and here. [No other family pictures, alas.]

Of his own volition, he walked up to Father and grabbed him by the hand and started walking around the parish hall, jabbering a good deal of the time. No doubt offering some suggestions for changes throughout the Archdiocese.

Yes, he's adorable. And, beating you to the punch--"Yes, he looks more like his mother."

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Never heard that one before.

I really, really have to buy Ignatius Press stock.

It appears that the Catholic bookstores in Motown (including the wildly uneven (1) official archdiocesan one) were emptied of the works of the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as of Saturday afternoon.

Well, actually, not quite. I was able to find the Pauline Books and Media version of this document at the last one I visited.

Just a thought--the fact that Dominus Iesus was even remotely controversial in Catholic theological circles only proves that you need a Cardinal Ratzinger in the first place.

-------------
Footnote:

(1) Memo to the wonderfully nice folks who man the archdiocesan store: the works of Aussie Michael Morwood (a Catholic Spong, only with less intellectual rigor) aren't fit to line a litter box, much less the shelves a respectable Catholic bookstore.

A break from the Bene-diction here of late.

[If you are new here, I periodically talk sports--football and hockey mostly, with sidelights into baseball and basketball. This is not an apology, merely an advisory.]

I know what you are thinking:

Why did the Lions take their third receiver in a row in the first round?

Two reasons: (1) you can't pass up talent like that, and (2) they need one.

No, (2) is deadly serious. Despite the addition of Charles Rogers and Roy Williams the last two years, the Lions' receiving corps remained thin. For starters, despite great promise and ability, Rogers has shown all the durability of a thrown champagne flute the last two seasons. He's played in six whole games. His injuries are described as "freakish" (i.e., not chronic or likely to repeat), but you can't count on that. Roy Williams was also hobbled by ailments near the end of last season. And after those two, you have the towering talents of Scotty "Where Are Your Testicles?" Anderson and Az-Zahir Hakim (a good locker room presence with speed, but another champagne flute). The Lions needed another pair of hands, and M. Williams has the best in the draft. I know his speed was supposedly lacking (in the high 4.5s), but he hasn't played ball in over a year. He'll be faster than that. If Rogers is healthy (gigantic if), an NFC North defensive coordinator has to face the prospect of twice stopping an offense featuring Rogers, the Williamses, newly-signed Kevin Johnson as the No. 4, Marcus Pollard at TE and Kevin Jones, who shows every sign of being a 1500 yard RB this season. The question remains at QB, but perhaps Harrington can do a Drew Brees transformation in his fourth season, too. If not, Jeff Garcia is waiting in the wings.

If the Lions had passed up a bona-fide defensive can't miss prospect, I'd be upset. But those were all gone as of the Lions' pick.

Time will tell, but it looks like the Lions may--MAY--be turning the corner.

But these are the Lions.

Oh, that's it.

I puzzled over the media firestorm concerning Benedict XVI's compulsory membership in the Hitler Youth. I couldn't make sense of the outrage over this--it's not like he had much of a choice.

Then it hit me--of course!

Such a decision runs counter to our venerable American tradition of 14 year old martyrs...

Quo vadis, Hugh?

I'm a big fan of Hugh Hewitt (alas, his radio show is broadcast on tape delay at midnight in these parts), and if you have never visited it, his blog is well worth your time.

While he is an evangelical (a member of the wholly-sane Presbyterian Church in America), what is less well known is that he was raised Catholic and only left the Church in his adulthood (roughly 1990). Fortunately, he's not one to chuck darts at his former co-religionists, as his recent positive coverage of the late PJPII and BXVI have demonstrated. In an article in the December 2002 issue of Crisis, he gave a few reasons why he left (emphasis added in bold):

Conservative radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt, who is author of The Embarrassed Believer: Reviving Christian Witness in an Age of Unbelief, says he’s "on leave" from the Catholic Church. He argues, "The American Church...needs a reformation." But, he despairs, "none is even remotely close to occurring."

Hewitt points to the new cathedral in Los Angeles as "the perfect expression of the American Church today—so sterile it could be an air conditioning plant and designed to please non-Catholics with the taste of the leadership."

Hewitt describes his move from Roman Catholicism to Presbyterianism as partly positive and partly negative. He considers himself an "ex-pat, obliged to move to a Protestant expression of faith because I experience God’s presence more easily and more conclusively as a Presbyterian and began to do so over a dozen years ago." Presbyterianism works for him in ways Catholicism no longer did. "The Presbyterian confessions and order of worship are very left-brain and made me into a much better Christian," he says.

But some of the reasons for Hewitt’s move were direct reactions to problems he saw in the Catholic Church. Hewitt says, "The American bishops literally drove me out. I could not read the paper without muttering about their inanities. James Malone, the bishop of Youngstown, my bishop, who confirmed me, sputtering about nuclear weapons and poverty"—all this while Hewitt worked in the Reagan White House.

"These silly men," Hewitt complains, "issued reams of nonsense and met and met and met even as the liturgy collapsed into incoherence and the preaching dissolved into eight-minute homilies on the need for love. There was also the problem of the Responsorial Antiphon. It would almost always cause me to either laugh or grind my teeth. Is there a worse collection of ‘music’ anywhere? And the Christian Rite of Initiation, and the revamped Sacrament of Reconciliation—all of it just another set of committee reports from priests and nuns bored with the old Church. I could go on, but my guess is that you have heard it all before."

Hewitt concludes, "There is enormous energy and talent within the American Church which might over the years genuinely renew it and rebuild it. But I need God on a much more immediate basis."

With that in mind, I found this blog post to be very, very interesting (emphasis also in bold):

Pope Benedict XVI is a scholar, and a teacher. Scholar/teachers have students, and they stay close with many of them. Father Joseph Fessio, Provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, studied under the new pope in the early '70s, and has stayed a friend and student for thirty years. He was my guest today. Here is a short and important --in fact crucial-- excerpt from that conversation. A complete transcript will be posted later at Radioblogger:

"His deepest love is the Mass. And so he wrote a book called The Spirit of the Liturgy, and it is clear that he believes that what happened after Vatican II, that Council, was that the way the Mass was celebrated really represented a break from tradition. It was no longer in continuity. So, he has said publicly that the previous rite should never have been abolished because it was a rite that had nourished saints for centuries. At the same time, he was the one who had to negotiate with Lefebrve and others, and who had to tell the pope, 'We can't take anymore, they have broken the rules here, they have ordained bishops.' So he deeply wants to have the Mass celebrated as he says in his homily [today] with solemnity and rectitude. So I think he will reach out to those who have a love for the pre-[Vatican II] Mass."

Make of that what you will, but it's obvious that Hugh is going to be watching developments very, very closely. It is very unlikely that he will be the only "exile Catholic" to be doing so.

Interesting times, indeed.

I haven't seen a better graphic bullseye...ever.




[Hat tip: Gathering Goat Eggs.]

Mr. Hand...turning...into Mr.....Fist....

Bill Cork unearthed this bit of yawping about the new Pope from Fr. John Pawlikowski:

Consequently [in the wake of the issuance of Dominus Iesus--which is Latin for "The Lord Jesus," not "The Dominion of Jesus," as the article mistakenly claims], Rev. John T. Pawlikowski, president of the International Council of Christians and Jews, called on Ratzinger and the Vatican to clarify whether it believed Jews could attain salvation through Judaism, and whether the Church has completely abandoned its doctrine of proselytizing to Jews.

"We still have among major Church leaders... strong assertions that all salvation has to be said as coming through Christ," Pawlikowski said, adding, "I don't think we can make the affirmation 'There is no mission to the Jews,' unless we really confront some of these realities head on — otherwise our Jewish friends will hear almost conflicting messages."

"'All are welcome,'" meet 'Door Not Hitting A**'. 'A**', meet 'All.'"

This is precisely the problem that has to be remedied, pronto. As Bill correctly notes, Fr. Pawlikowski is a universalist. He does not believe that Jesus is, in fact, Lord. He has no business attempting to present "the Catholic position" in ecumenical/interfaith dialogue because it is clear he has utter contempt for that position. Instead, he prefers to offer up his own theological freelancing. Not only is he doing a disservice to the Church he draws a paycheck from, he is doing a disservice to the non-Catholics he speaks to. He needs to be fired. Now.

I don't suggest holding your breath, though.

It is precisely this sort of mixed messaging--the eagerness of Catholics in positions of authority to substitute their own views for official teaching that lies at the heart of the mess we are in today. It's not always this obvious. Often it's more subtle--an accurate presentation of authoritative statements followed up by a description of them as "the opinion of the Magisterium," or "But other scholars say..." And, yes, I know--it's not an exclusive flaw of progressives--conservatives can do the same, subtly shelving pretty clear teaching on the death penalty, just war and economic issues with sludgy rhetoric. Yes, yes--I know--not all of the settled issues are on the same moral plane or involve the same calculations. But the rhetoric is still suspiciously familiar, not to mention convenient.

Either way, this is the problem that has to be addressed, and soon. And it doesn't matter how many toes get stepped on or egos get bruised in the process. We can't have the Fr. Pawlikowskis of the world constantly rewriting the weather bulletins about hurricane warnings just because they find the forecasts to be "too negative."