Archive for the ‘catholic’ Category

Tablet vs Blogger Priest

Posted: February 20, 2009 by datechguy in catholic
Tags:

You know I wish it was a surprise when a “catholic” newspaper goes after a Catholic priest for, well behaving Catholic. Unfortunately it is not.

Damian Thompson warned us it was coming:

Fr Tim Finigan, author of the Hermeneutic of Continuity blog, is one of the finest parish priests in the country: a scholar, evangelist and pastor who is as happy spreading the Gospel over a pint in the pub as he is from the pulpit. But now there are rumours that the Tablet is planning a hatchet job on him, for the grave crime of… saying the Latin Mass. Fr Tim, PP of Our Lady of the Rosary, Blackfen, Kent, says three new rite Masses on a Sunday and one in the Extraordinary Form.

The article is here and it’s a great example of liberal journalism. The only thing missing is blaming George W. Bush but it is England. Thompson calls it inept. Fr Tim Fisks it on his blog. Fr. Z does the same on his.

The only weakness I see in any of the posts is there is no link to the base article. Of course since it is being fisked the article in full appears but a linkback should be there.

I like the quote from the current pope, I’ve never heard it before:

I remember years ago in the corridor of the Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio, I asked Cardinal Ratzinger how he took the constant unfair criticism. I had read that day a terrible article about him in an Italian daily.

He said, “If I don’t read an article like that every week or so, I have to examine my conscience.”

That sums it up.

New Pelosi Pope News

Posted: February 19, 2009 by datechguy in catholic
Tags: ,

Via the Curt Jester apparently there is more to the Pelosi/Pope meeting that we knew about. Apparently there was also a secret meeting with her Archbishop first:

Michael Voris of Real CathlicTV reports today in his daily Vortex column that this meeting between Pelosi and Archbishop Niederauer took place quietly and clandestinely on Sunday, February 8th in a private residence in San Francisco. Realcatholictv.com confirmed this fact with both the Archdiocese of San Francisco and Pelosi’s office in DC.

Pelsoi’s spokesman Brendan Daly said Pelosi described the meeting as quote .. “cordial and pleasant .. a fair exchange and good.”

When pressed by realcatholictv.com producer and host Michael Voris , if “good” meant that she had changed her position on abortion and finally gotten in line with Catholic teaching, Daly replied, “You won’t see that happening. She is not changing her position on abortion.”

Pelosi’s office won’t comment on the meeting:

Pelosi aides wouldn’t comment on the content of what they described as a private meeting between a practicing Catholic and her archbishop.

Fr John Mallow sees Deceit Deceit Deceit:

1) I believe that the Speaker decided it was in her best interest to meet with the Archbishop before her trip to Rome, but not to have the meeting known before the trip to Rome. I believe Pelosi’s meeting the Pope was conditional on her meeting with the Archbishop. I believe that someone from the Vatican told them (especially her, but through him): meet now or forget about meeting with the Holy Father.

2) I believe the meeting was covered up because that was a condition made by the Speaker, (easily acceded to by the Archbishop, because he saw it as a private pastoral meeting). For Pelosi, what is the political upside of having her meeting with the Archbishop known? None—it’s all downside. If it were publicly known, then the questions among faithful Catholics immediately arise: Well, do you now accept settled Church teaching? Do you plan on remaining a Catholic? If not, why do you want to meet with the Holy Father? She’d lose Catholic votes, without picking up any corresponding votes on the other side, because they know she’s not really Catholic anyway—if she were they would not be voting for her. What’s the upside? She gets to meet the Pope.

3) I believe the timing of the leaked information (from both the Archdiocese and Pelosi’s office) to “Real Catholic TV” is deliberate—it came too late to affect Pelosi’s meeting with the Pope (with the hoped-for but not-to-materialize papal photo-op), but allowed her spokesman and the Archdiocese to claim they’ve done their duties as Catholics to prepare her for meeting with the Holy Father.

Related post on it here, bottom line:

The Archbishop has met with her and has explained Church’s teaching- – and Speaker Pelosi has said .. good meeting .. thank you. I still support abortion.

The bottom line is will Archbishop Niederauer now refuse her Holy Communion?

Your move Archbishop — a lot of people are watching.

This is a prayer request just waiting to happen.

The Boom is lowered

Posted: February 18, 2009 by datechguy in catholic
Tags: ,

At the Corner George Weigel fires the big guns in the Pelosi Pope meeting:

As her performance on Meet the Press prior to last year’s Democratic national convention made painfully clear, Pelosi is deeply confused about what her church teaches on the morality of abortion, and why. She may have come to her bizarre views on her own; it’s far more likely that she has been un-catechized, so to speak, by Catholic intellectuals and clerics who find Catholic teaching on life issues an embarrassment among their high-minded friends and colleagues of the progressive persuasion. Whatever the source of her confusion, Pelosi has now been informed, and by a world-class intellectual who happens to be the universal pastor of the Catholic Church, that she is, in fact, confused, and that both her spiritual life and her public service are in jeopardy because of that.

It is not for nothing that the subject of Abortion was totally absent from the speakers office’s statement.

Quick follow up on abortion…

Posted: February 18, 2009 by datechguy in catholic
Tags: ,

…to this post. I want to address something I mentioned in my last post:

Remember it isn’t the souls of the aborted that are at risk, it is the souls of those who are involved in the action itself and its support. They should be our primary concern and the focus of our prayers.

When I had my discussion with my nephew concerning religion he jumped all over this in the same way the Ebon the atheist does on his blog:

And Lewis has it exactly right: if death before the age of accountability means instant no-effort salvation, then the majority of the population of Heaven will be made up of people who died in infancy or very early childhood and never had a life on Earth at all. This is even more true if, as many Christians believe, even a single-celled embryo is a person with a soul. By some estimates, as many as 75% of all conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, usually before the woman ever realizes she is pregnant – a vast number of souls that will get into Heaven for free, while the majority of the unlucky few who happen to survive into adulthood will end up consigned to eternal torment.

The bizarre, ludicrous illogic of this system turns notions of morality on their head. The logical conclusion from these beliefs would be that it is a morally praiseworthy act to kill children, thereby guaranteeing their salvation. The corollary is that life on Earth is a terrible misfortune and something to be avoided at all costs, veering extremely close to the ancient Gnostic belief systems condemned as heresy by the church. Why in the world would God even bother to create the Earth if “human birth is important chiefly as the qualification for human death”? Why not just create a race of beings that all die in the womb and have their salvation assured? Lewis mentions these glaring facts, but never addresses their implications for Christianity.

His earlier George W. Bush rant not withstanding; this is a solid question that deserves an answer so let me give the one I gave to my nephew who echoed the argument that an abortionist made concerning this about sending souls to heaven. Lets take them in order. First of all there is a reason why the commandments are in order. And commandment number one is:

You shall have no other Gods but me!

The act of taking what belongs to God or the attempt to make oneself God is a big sin, maybe even THE great sin, not only does the abortionist violate this sin but he brings millions to that same brink and establishes it. The number of abortions still is dwarfed by the number of births and the number of people actually alive. The establishment of it as a societal has the potential to damn far more people over the course of decades than the number of souls that avoid judgment. No person makes this argument for their own sake, they make it to shut other people up.

The second point in his argument is the “spontaneous abortion” argument. Scientifically there is no question when a human life begins. At conception you have a human. Thus as a society “human” rights need to proceed from that point. Some might want to play “gotcha” games on the moment the soul exists, but that leads to the danger of giving an out to play with human life.

We are actually warned in scripture that this is the case, remember the ending of the parable:

When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.’ When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’ He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?‘ Matt 20:8-15

Again we have the protest of God methods the foolishness of the Cross as Paul says:

For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning. The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1 Cor 17:18

Mr. Ebon also forgets the gift of free will. I ask him if he would prefer a life where he is fed, clothed and taken care of but doesn’t have free will? That is the gift that that a full life gives us, we are given the chance to make our own choices, for good or ill. One can’t create saints without the potential to create sinners. Would Ebon consider himself lucky if his free will was removed? Would you?

The killing children argument I’ve already covered above, but I would also mention that the primary duty of the individual is to send oneself to heaven. Remember this passage:

“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.” Matthew 10:37

This should cover the argument. Like most liberals we see the cry against an unfair world. One would be more wise to spend one’s time living in it instead.

Older Entries
Newer Entries