The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
A voice of reason in a maelstrom of condemnations
Jul. 02, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Pope Benedict XVI leaves from his general audience in St. Peter's Square July 1. (CNS)
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionCommentary
Well, we're in trouble now. U.S. bishops, not all of them but clearly a vocal few, have brought the church to the point of serious confusion. By denouncing Notre Dame for inviting President Obama to give the university's 2009 commencement address and, in the course of that ceremony, to receive the honorary degree awarded to eight U.S. presidents before him, the bishops are surely in an awkward position. To say the least.
The problem is that on July 10, Pope Benedict XVI will receive President Obama at the Vatican itself. That kind of reception is, of course, no small honor for anyone and surely a symbol of dialogue and listening at the highest level of Vatican diplomacy.
So will those same bishops denounce the Vatican, too, as they did Notre Dame? And if not, what is that saying?
It must be saying that to be in the presence of someone who does not agree with you, to engage in dialogue with someone who holds your values but seeks to achieve them differently, is not a moral misdemeanor.
It is surely saying that the church at large is not seeking either to separate itself from the rest of the human race or to wage silent warfare -- a kind of civic passive aggression -- against those who hold our same regard for life but pursue that ideal in ways other than ours.
Finally, it may well be saying that for all of us as citizens of a pluralistic society, as Catholics in a world so often at odds with us on social questions, it is possible to make common cause on major issues -- while we continue to work our way toward consensus on those that take longer to define, are more difficult to discuss, have multiple shades of morality or scientific meaning.
It does not, surely, under any condition, mean that the pope and the Vatican have abandoned the Catholic world view on questions of the value of life or can no longer be considered "Catholic." All of which are allegations made of those who fail to judge, condemn, deny or reject Catholic politicians who seek to eliminate abortion by making it unnecessary rather than simply criminalizing abortion and ignoring the social system that breeds it.
On the contrary, early reports indicate that the pope's upcoming encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (“Charity in Truth,”), clearly argues that the defense of the poor and the defense of unborn life are "necessarily linked."
Which leaves us in a quandary. Is the attempt by some to ostracize those who seek alternative approaches to the subject of abortion really the most effective -- and the most moral position -- a Catholic can take? By ignoring -- and so minimizing -- all other social justice issues, can we possibly consider ourselves sufficiently grounded in a Catholic vision of the world, even in regard to our commitment to this one?
In fact, despite the papal pronouncement of John XXIII, that "nuclear weapons are a sin against humanity," the church did not condemn politicians who voted for the continuing existence of a weapon that threatened the life of all humankind.
The church did not, for instance, inveigh against politicians who supported the invasion of a nation, the destruction of a people, the death of thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians even after it was clear that the so-called "cause" of the Iraq war was at best false and possibly inveigled.
Nor did the church denounce Ronald Reagan and his war against unions despite our century of support for laborers.
Neither did the church oppose, let alone excommunicate, those who contributed to the poverty of the world by pursuing the principles of "The American Century," which -- translated -- meant the manipulation of the rest of the world into supporting the intentions and policies of American foreign policy.
Instead, in this soon- to-be-released encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, the pope speaks resoundingly in favor of the global authority that will be necessary to assure justice for developing countries as they strive to achieve their own goals and interests.
He calls labor unions of all nations to work together against the corporate interests that use the poor for the sake of the rich.
He calls for a two-state solution in the Middle East despite the fact that U.S. support has historically tilted far more heavily toward Israel than toward Palestine in regard to land rights in the area.
The encyclical, in other words, confronts the world with issues, questions, and policies designed to defend the interests of the poor without condemning the work or policies of the rich. He promotes no particular programs or politicians or political systems. But he does call for justice for those people and places where it is most lacking at the present time.
What can the rest of us gather from such an approach? Maybe this: That it is the function of churches to form the consciences of their members who seek to lead moral lives in their societies, rather than to take political sides against particular politicians or political systems.
From where I stand, that could do a lot to heal divisions in the church as people of goodwill attempt to live moral lives in a period of history in which new questions assail old answers daily. It would also unleash another kind of Catholic voice in the public arena, a voice that not only promotes its own position but can respect the positions of equally moral-minded others.
We are, after all, the church of the Medicis and the Borgias, the Papal States and the Avignon Papacy, the Documents of Discovery and anti-Modernism, the condemnation of "mixed" marriages and the rejection of the U.S. policy of separation of church and state. It may behoove us to be a bit more compassionate in our condemnations and a bit more humble in our attempts at political dialogue.
[A Benedictine Sister of Erie, Joan Chittister is a best-selling author and well-known international lecturer on topics of justice, peace, human rights, women's issues, and contemporary spirituality in the Church and in society. Read more Chittister's NCR columns here: From Where I Stand.]
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this column had the title of Pope Benedict's encylical Caritas in Veritate wrong. We regret the error and thank readers for bring this to our attention.
"It is surely saying that the
"It is surely saying that the church at large is not seeking either to separate itself from the rest of the human race or to wage silent warfare -- a kind of civic passive aggression -- against those who hold our same regard for life but pursue that ideal in ways other than ours."
Obama holds the same regard for life as ours????? He supports abortion on demand! How can anyone with any sense at all believe that he holds the same regard for human life as that of the Catholic Church???? I am completely bemused by this article. Sentiments such as these show just how timely and necessary is the apostolic visitation of women's religious communities in the US.
Dear Dr. Baguette (and kindly
Dear Dr. Baguette (and kindly indicate in what field lies your doctoral degree; perhaps like Dr. Laura of Broadcast fame in the veterinary field?),
In light of your academic degree which certainly required keen scholarship and traditional academic methodology, would you kindly and patiently indicate the direct sources of this otherwise apparently insupportable statement of yours (and I quote you directly): "Obama ( . . .) supports abortion on demand!" I merely edit for brevity's sake, and to remove your quintuple question marks, certainly the mark of the highest scholar.
Bemused might not be the precise word you seek here, but I bow to your academic background.
Do I understand correctly your tone of threat in your final sentence? Do you not rather see within this article and your absurd response "just how timely and necessary is the apostolic visitation" of our noble new president and our Supreme Pontiff, whose perspective, and indeed beliefs, may differ greatly from your own?
just wondering, I remain ever,
your least brother
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Frere Charles,your request
Frere Charles,your request for a scholarly piece from Dr. Tom is absurd, is it not? Shall we go back to all the clips where Mr. Obama makes statements about hypothetically not letting his own daughters be punished with a child? We can do this. There is MUCH the "american pope" said in public in the 2008 campaign that reveals his intentions about abortion, not to mention his miniscule but PUBLIC voting record regarding abortion! If you are wanting to know, which I doubt, we can bring you a plethora of information, but it will mean reading things outside your lieteray perview, beyond the NCR.
As to your mispelling of Dr. Tom's last name, I prefer to assume that this is an honest act, and not the typical sardonic response of a liberal. If it is sardonism on display, well, I won't be shocked.
Dear Sam, Kindly cite
Dear Sam,
Kindly cite severally these "statements" regarding his beloved and precious daughters, as well as the "MUCH" "said in public in the 2008 campaign that reveals his intention about abortion, not to mention his miniscule but PUBLIC voting record regarding abortion!" It took me a moment to realize your reference to the "american pope" refers to my President of these United States, and I look forward to your providing, Mr. Wood, the primary sources for your assertions. I look forward to your providing the "plethora of information" from beyond my "lieteray perview, beyond the NCR."
Kindly forgive my confusion and my ignorance here as elsewhere: Is a "perview" like a pay-per-view, or a purview? Is a "lieteray" one which prevaricates, or a ray of light, as in a light saber, or rather as the brilliance emanating from the pages of our beloved and hallowed NCR?
I thought Dr. Tom was actually a Dr. John, of whatever doctorate, whether microbiology or real estate, but am grateful for your suggestion of a correction of the spelling of his last name. My old eyes do not see clearly your intended spelling, but I thank you for your time in taking this most charitable effort at correction. Moreover, I sincerely regret you discovery of any "sardonism" in my remarks (another neologism for me, I must admit), due no doubt to my severely limited linguistic capabilities, and your mischaracterization of my economic philosophy, and I certainly pray you are not shocked any longer by my exceedingly poor efforts at communication.
for I remain
your poorest servant
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Ssam, dude, his name is John,
Ssam, dude, his name is John, not Tom
Can you show me the facts
Can you show me the facts that support your accusation that Obama supports abortion on demand? To Mr. John, is is really necessary for you to throw accusations at all religious women and congregations because you happen to disagree with one such religious woman? I find your response disheartening for an educated man, a seeminng professed Roman Catholic and Christian.
Proof shown - Obama wants the
Proof shown - Obama wants the government health care entity to pay for abortions with federal money. Our God should not be left wing politics. If you truly value all human life, then you cannot support Obama.
Dear Dr. Bequette, Perhaps
Dear Dr. Bequette, Perhaps all of us are missing the point about Contemporary Spirituality of which Sr. Joan is the expert. Many Catholics point to Pope John the XX111 and Vatican 11 as the beginning of the new spirituality, except that nothing has really changed except for a few very minor parts of the liturgy! Yes we are to be more open to those that do not believe as we do however none of our beliefs have changed!How do so many members of our clergy and religious side with changes to tenants that will never change? So many are super- critical of our Bishops and Cardinals and yes even our Pope for teaching us what Jesus Christ has commanded them! Our Hierarchy may be made up of weak men just as the Apostles were weak however Jesus did not back off and start in a new direction. The present Hierarchy are the successors to the Apostles and as such deserve our love and support. They will make mistakes and will be punished for those mistakes as in the recent Pedophile debacle however do we overturn the commands of Jesus Christ for the failings of weak people? Who among us is perfect as Jesus Christ is Perfect?? Thank you for your succinct comments and pray for all of us as we pray for you. God love you.
Dear our learned Mr.
Dear our learned Mr. Warren,
I had as ever some difficulty in following your reasoning here, particularly as you do not supply primary sources upon which to base your statements, including specifying to which Documents of the Second Vatican Council you refer, and how they differed from earlier dogmatic declarations, etc., and above all how they differ from the teachings of Jesus Christ (and which teachings). I also would appreciate any specifics regarding your "they" who are so condemnatory of our hierarchy and what their specific statements are.
You also pose this poignant rhetorical question: "How do so many members of our clergy and religious side with changes to tenants that will never change?" How admirable for some in our clergy, though not many you indicate, to side with these tenants, but please make clear for me how they will never change. Do these tenants have some sort of rent-control or other protection from eviction? With the present crisis in housing it is certainly good to know there are tenants who will never need to change their place of residence, and most heroic of some few of our clergy (by your count) to side with them, but how do they manage to do this? Once more, please forgive me, but I must ask for your specific references. Can you please at least name names, without offending any confidentialities?
Begging your forgiveness for this my request for clarification, I remain ever
your poorest servant
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Joan Chittister suggests more
Joan Chittister suggests more compassion and more humility. She seeks inclusivity and dialogue. I thank her for her clarity and charity.
Compassion for the
Compassion for the defenceless babe in the womb? Why is the babe in the womb not included?
For the most part, I agree
For the most part, I agree with Sr. Joan...it is a bit weird that bishops will condemn Notre Dame but claim the Pope granting him an audience (which is surely a greater honor than a mere honorary degree) is just "not the same thing."
However, the phrase "the same regard for life" is problematic. President Obama clearly respects life, but his priorities are different. For example, clearly he doesn't want a country that codifies into law the Catholic belief that everyone pregnant female should give birth even if she dies in the attempt. And neither do I. Why would anyone think this a humane point of view?
The bottom line is that the bishops were angry--despite their obvious endorsement of John McCain (who was pro-choice until the election), more Catholics voted for Obama.
Let's move on and work for fewer abortions--together.
Dear Dr. Bequette, Anyone who
Dear Dr. Bequette, Anyone who has listened to President Obama knows that:
1) He has stated emphatically that he has absolutely no intenion of overturning Roe Vs Wade which calls for abortion on demand. He has also said that abortion should be rare?? Often this doublespeak is confusing to all but political hounds such as President Obama will take both sides to confuse people!!
2) When President Obama was with the Illinois Legislature he voted against a bill which would have prevented partial-birth abortions from happening.
3) His agenda speaks to the Far-Left of his party and as such he has no intention of seeking to overturn the law which has permitted the killing of over Forty Million Innocents since it's inception. Welcome to the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave and the Home of the Dying Innocents!!
Dear Mr. Warren, Kindly
Dear Mr. Warren,
Kindly explain to me in simplest terms how the head of the Executive Branch of our Federal Government can "overturn" a Constitutional Principle upheld by the Judicial Branch, without also overturning the US Constitution? Were this possible, how and why did the past unfortunate Commander-in-Chief avoid doing so? Was he speaking "to the Far-Left of his party?"
Pardon my very limited linguistic abilities but please explain this to me patiently, for I remain ever
your poorest servant
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Oh, spare us your
Oh, spare us your condemnation of President Obama. What did GW Bush do to overturn Roe vs Wade? He did squat!
Clearly, if you had ears to hear you would have heard by now what President Obama's agenda is. But you can not hear and you refuse to hear! And I'm not repeating it for you, because the National Catholic Reporter and many comments have been posted regarding what the agenda is.
btw - President Obama is more pro-life than GW Bush ever was!
Dear Sr. Joan, Here we go
Dear Sr. Joan, Here we go again. What does one gain in bringing up the past? Sure all of humankind has made mistakes, committed serious crimes against humankind and will continue to do so far into the the future until the end of time. GOD is in control and all will even out. Do we give up our beliefs and throw out the baby with the bathwater or do we hang in there and use example in place of words to spread our beliefs. JESUS CHRIST did establish the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ON EARTH! HE WANTS AND EXPECTS OUR LOVE!! CALL UPON HIM FOR THE LEAST OF YOUR NEEDS AND LOVE HIM WITH ALL YOUR HEART!!
Dear Tom, Get a grip on your
Dear Tom, Get a grip on your history, man. Jesus did NOT "establish the Roman Catholic Church on earth." The organized part of Christianity became Romanized by the emperor Constantine in the fourth century in a political act, not a "spiritual" endeavor. Contrary to other thoughts, Rome was not "converted" to Christianity; the open practice of Christianity became "legal", and the emperor demanded that the bishops do things his way and create a code of rules--which mostly did not include the teachings of Jesus. There were a large number of people we now call "saints' and "desert fathers and mothers" who refused to buy into this political arrangement and kept alive the true, non-political teachings of Jesus, Paul and the other early disciples by moving away from Rome into the remote regions of the Egyptian deserts.
Knowing the past IS important, Tom. Saying things "will even out" isn't very consoling to the thousands of innocent people killed in the crusades or the inquisition or during the holocaust of WW2 or during the Iraqi war; or the thousands of children and others sexually abused by priests who were protected by our cowardly bishops. Suggesting that we as a church and our "leaders" in Rome don't have responsibilities to work against crimes against humankind is totally against the teachings of Jesus whose major teachings were against the oppressive political and religious practices which dominated the common people. Jesus didn't teach that "things will even out."
Dear aldus, Use of the term
Dear aldus, Use of the term Roman Catholic Church distinguishes the Church from all the thousands of Churches established from the beginning of Christianity. Many Churches call their religion Catholic today although their only criteria is the term catholic meaning universal. Errors are spreading throughout the earth as has happened for the past 2000 years. All Roman Catholics with allegiance to The Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of His Emminence Pope Benedict the xvi have a responsibility to point out the wrongs done to all and when possible act to correct same. Much is stated on this board to further confusion. Read all pontification prior to posting. All will even out at The Last Judgement!
Jesus Christ led the way to
Jesus Christ led the way to the establishment of the Christian faith...not the Roman Catholic Church! Charlemagne sanctioned that. No doubt Jesus would be horrified at the way the Roman Catholic Popes and the priests have acted throughout the centuries, certainly not Christlike. The Roman Catholic Church, run by men for the benefit of men, has twisted the teachings of Jesus and the Bible to their own benefit and profit. Jesus opened his heart and gave power and grace to women as well as the poor, afflicted and scorned. The Roman Catholic Church decides who in humankind, ALL MADE IN GOD'S IMAGE, if we are to believe the Bible, are worthy. The Roman Catholic Church, rich on the backs of the multitudes throughout the centuries, is a political bastion of male supremacy attempting to keep its followers from acknowledging the value of everyone!
Sr. Joan Chittister is a refreshing voice in the Catholic wilderness.
The Roman Pontiffs trace all
The Roman Pontiffs trace all the way back to Peter. Human pride led to break aways from that original Church. The Devil hates Christ's Church as is constantly working to cause further disunity.
Bringing up the past is very
Bringing up the past is very important, because the past informs the present and the future. The past shows what the Catholic Church thinks about the "use example in place of words to spread our beliefs" with the examples of Bishops looking the other way when priests abuse children, and when the Pope brings one of the biggest "look the other way" Cardinals, Law, to Rome to work. Examples indeed!!! I think you misread the Bible, it says nothing, I say nothing, about the Roman Catholic Church. That is part of the problem, some of us Catholics think we have all the answers, all the graces, all the love that God sheds on everyone (Christ says God's love falls on the earth like rain) so non-Catholic and non Christian alike receive God's love. For too many years, decades, centuries, the RC Church pitted "us" against "them," which did nothing but bring hostilities, anger, resentment, etc. Oh yes, there's another one of your "examples." When you "LOVE HIM WITH ALL YOUR HEART!!" the HIM you refer to is the person next to you, or the person you work with, play with, disagree with for we were ALL made in the image and likeness of God.
Mr. Tom Warren, You've got
Mr. Tom Warren,
You've got your history mixed up! Jesus Christ had nothing to do with the formation of the Roman Catholic Church! Charlemagne sanctioned the formation to stop the carnage between many religions and sects in his empire. Jesus brought Christianity to his disciples and the ordinary people of his time, and later others like Paul, who didn't even know Jesus, took up the cause. Jesus would probably be horrified to see how down through the ages the Roman Catholic Church murdered, pillaged, and otherwise ignored the teachings of love and inclusivity of Jesus. The Catholic Church was begun by men with their own agenda for their own gratification. They decided which books of the Bible would be included and which would remain hidden for centuries, often to justify their own greedy actions. Jesus gave women as much honor and power as men, yet the Catholic Church has kept women in a servile position even today where nuns don't even have the financial support of the church. They have to raise all the money it takes to keep them alive, housed, fed and clothed. Under Pope Benedict, I don't see where that "love" you speak of figures into the way the church continues to cover-up the actions of sick priests, dismiss, discriminate and condemn people because they don't "fit" the Roman Catholic way. It's easy to say "God is in control" which is another way of saying "I don't have to take responsibility for my actions." It's mankind that makes the messes we constantly have to work to change...God gave us the ability to think and choose, not carte blanche to leave it all up to God.
Dear Anonymous, Scripture
Dear Anonymous, Scripture supports the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in the WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST!
Dear Tom Warren, Please go
Dear Tom Warren,
Please go and consult a Catholic Bible immediately! Please find where Jesus tells Simon, "You are Peter and upon this rock, I will build the Roman Catholic Church...."
It's nowhere, man! Besides, what about all the other Catholics who are not of the Roman rite? What are they---Peter's step-children? They are just as Catholic as Roman rite Catholics are. Jesus did not establish the Catholic Church---it is not in the Bible.
The followers of Christ were called Christians (in Antioch), for the first time---and that IS in the Bible---in the Acts of the Apostles. The word 'Catholic' did not become the name of our Church until the split between the Eastern and Western churches in 1055 AD. The Eastern Church called itself "Orthodox", and the Western Church called itself "Catholic". And the other rites, both of the east and west that are united under the Bishop of Rome---are called Catholic, too--Byzantine, Coptic, Maronite, Ruthenian, Ambrosian, etc. about 21 rites in all----are all Catholic. But this is NOT in the Bible!
Dear Ursa Minor, Now that you
Dear Ursa Minor,
Now that you mention it, I guess it would have seemed odd to all involved at that time should Our Lord have said such a thing, as you phrase it, being crucified as He was by the unholy Roman Empire (now matter how Mel Gibson framed things).
I guess our friend Tom refers to the Apostolic Succession which places Saint Peter in Rome, as first of the Roman Catholic Popes, himself to be crucified by the Romans, but such a thing requires not only a careful study of the sacred text you suggest, but also a close reading of the Reverend Richard P. McBrien's scholarly Lives of the Popes . . .
just wondering
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
What a disingeneous article!
What a disingeneous article! The good thing is that no one, except the NCR apologists for modernism, is buying this nonsense anymore.
The Pope meeting the President of US is not the same as Notre Shame conferring an honorary degree on a man who supports the legal killing of a whole class of human beings. Notre Shame should take a lesson from Columbia's example; that University, in an act of authentic academic freedom, hosted a conference where another reprehensible president was involved. However, unlike Notre Shame's unabashed fawning over a man who has complete disregard for unborn life, Columbia hosted but engaged in spirited questioning of the President of Iran.
Pax et Bonum
P.S. Two more examples of philosophical dishonesty: 1. "someone who holds your values but seeks to achieve them differently" so the Obama holds our own values on the sacredness of human life from the moment of conception until natural death? So Obama holds our own values on abortion being murder? And 2. "rather than to take political sides against particular politicians or political systems" so the Church should not have excomunicated segregationist politicians, should not condenm the Communist or Nazi parties, should not oppose apartheid or fascism?
It is amazing and apalling to see the modernists be so quick to sell out to power. On second thought, it shouldn't be so surprising; early Christian apostates sold out to other rulers who thought themselves to be "messiahs".
I'm assuming you meant
I'm assuming you meant "disingenuous".
Sad to see a Catholic so full of hatred for a decent person like Obama that he puts him in the same category as the President of Iran and labels him "reprehensible". There are many ways to be "pro-life" other than being simply "anti-abortion" and Obama has shown his concern for life and the well-being of his fellow man in a myriad of ways...much moreso than other presidents one could name. (Trying to get health care for everyone, including unborn children of mothers who might not consider abortion if they could get decent prenatal care...a basic moral imperative if you are truly pro-life...is one of the most important things Obama is trying to do but no one ever mentions that.) Being "anti-abortion" does not necessarily make one "pro-life" or eliminate hatred and nastiness from one's thinking. As a lifelong Catholic and one who is also against abortion, I am completely disgusted by Catholics who spew such vitriol and call themselves Christian.
"Sad to see a Catholic so
"Sad to see a Catholic so full of hatred for a decent person like Obama that he puts him in the same category as the President of Iran and labels him "reprehensible".
--------------------
Unfortunately, there are far too many Catholic rightwing ideologues who use the issue of abortion to hide behind as they go about self indulgently spouting hatred, lies and half truths. As long as one professes to be anti-abortion, anything goes. It's no wonder the "prolife" movement has become so marginalized. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
hear hear mistern although
hear hear mistern although perhaps he meant "this ingenious" to which it matches more phonetically than your own reasonable suggestion.
Dear Gus, You write (and I
Dear Gus,
You write (and I quote): "the NCR apologists for modernism . . ."
Are you still among the vanguard battling the heresy of Modernism? When did that begin? And tell me, please, how is that going for you? Please document where you see this: "It is amazing and apalling to see the modernists be so quick to sell out to power." That certainly would be amazing; where do you see it?
Please forgive me if I try your tmie, but could you also provide some proof of this statement (and I quote you directly): " . . .a man who supports the legal killing of a whole class of human beings." How is that, Gus, and where do you find it written in a probable way? Can you also provide please any support at all for this statement: " . . .a man who has complete disregard for unborn life?" I knew you could not.
Gus. Where's the Pax et bonum?
Gus, where do you find this as well; can you please supply specific names and dates: "early Christian apostates sold out to other rulers who thought themselves to be "messiahs"." Would that be the Constantinian compromise which brought us such horrors as the "just war" theory? Pax et bonum, Gus!
Are you calling His Holiness apostate, Gus? Are you saying Pope Benedict XVI is selling out? Are you calling our President the Messiah, Gus? I just want to understand what you are trying to say.
On that note, I hope you have read James Carroll's Constantine's Sword or seen the movie. They're great!
just asking, dear Gus, I remain ever
your least brother
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Amen. Don't worry. This
Amen. Don't worry. This small aging segment of Catholicism's underbelly will be gone in another generation. What's sad is this site, purportedly Catholic, seems to allow and even solicit anti-Catholic articles, sentiment and comments.
"This small aging segment of
"This small aging segment of Catholicism's underbelly will be gone in another generation."
Amen, fellow Orthodox One! As we wait in joyful hope for these aging infidels to be purged by the the Vengeful Lord, I suggest they be rounded up and put behind barbed wire in the meantime. I would prefer a public stoning but the permissive liberal elements infecting today's Church would consider that "too uncharitable" for their kumbaya sensibilities. In just one more generation the Catholic Church will be purified to our satisfaction! Praise God!
Well I just almost fell out
Well I just almost fell out of my chair reading your comment "Authentically Orthodox." Authentically orthodox what? It is certainly not Catholic or even Christian in the least. You deceive yourself, but do not deceive a true follower of Jesus Christ. Are you a member of the Nazi Party? You sure sound like it when you say this: "I suggest they be rounded up and put behind barbed wire in the meantime."
And you claim to be a Catholic? If you are a Catholic, I am the Pope.
Your idea of "joyful hope" is demented, lame, blind, stiff-necked and with a hardened heart. Your "joyful hope" is sadistic and evil.
If only you reflected on Jesus Christ, you would not speak as you have about your neighbor nor wish ill will toward your neighbor. Jesus has nothing to do with your hatred and desire for vengeance. Jesus has everything to do with loving one's neighbor. You have failed the Lord and go against His teachings. You have turned your back on the Lord. Your words indicate you are a lost sheep. You can not and will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven with your "joyful hope" of poisonous vengeance against your neighbor.
dear and beautiful
dear and beautiful butterfly
err, I think the Authentically Orthodox one employed a rhetorical device called reductio ad absurdum (if memory for once serves me well) in reducing the earlier comment to the adsurdity which it is, especially as it denies the dogma of the Communion of the Saints which we Catholics profess each Sunday in the Credo. AO does not write in earnest but as a demonstration of the extreme danger of the irreligious and anti-Catholic attitudes expressed.
Besides, I still sing Kumbaya (Come by here) and find no fault with it.
your poorest servant
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
dearest and wonderful frere
dearest and wonderful frere charles,
Well, I'm wondering what all the fuss is about singing Kumbaya. I wonder who wrote that song? Time to Google. I'll have to include it in my repertoire.
I think the good Lord loves singing more than stoning people. Da. I know he doesn't like reductio ad absurdum, but that is the anti-Catholic specialty and agenda of fundamentalism.
your even poorer servant
butterfly
Come by here is an old song
Come by here is an old song of the slaves in the USA, which is why white people react so strongly against it. I love it, and find it deeply, profoundly effective.
I suspect you are being
I suspect you are being sarcastic? If so, I think the humor may be lost in print. And if you are, I do appreciate the humor!
Dear Authentically
Dear Authentically Orthodox,
You are stating that people do disagree with your barbaric concepts should be stoned and (maybe in your mind also burned at the stake as well)? You also state, that they (aging infidels--Liberals???) will be 'purged by the Vengeful Lord.' What a blood-thirsty monster, of your own making, you worship!
Got news for you, my savage friend---the 'aging infidels' have many teachers among them. And we are training up a whole new generation of true Catholics.
We hope that they will be completely balanced in their quest for God. That they are deeply spiritual and scriptural. That they worship God publically and pray privately. That they have a sound theological and historical understanding of the Church. That they have given service to their brothers and sisters in Christ and understand completely that service to God's people stands in first place in God's eyes, followed in the second position, by those who serve.
And, we stress over and over again to the young people---that if they would be true followers of Jesus Christ, they must be collaborative and cooperative in their dealings with others. That they learn well how to use counsel, persuasion and the good example of their lives--dedicated to Christ--as their main credentials for being Catholic/Christian. We want them to understand that the Lord Jesus came to save--to bring life and light---and not to destroy.
You stated that "in just one more generation the Catholic Church will be purified to our satisfaction." That is a static, deadly view of attaining a state of permanance in a changing existence. But that is not how the Church on this earth operates.
The Holy Spirit looks upon the Church as a cherished garden,
whose beauty and original plan was set up by the Trinity---Father, Son and Spirit. This cherished garden needs sunlight, rain, snow and wind coming upon it freely, in order for the garden to flourish.
But unfortunately, we have had enough of hierling gardeners trying to make the garden smaller and keeping visitors to the garden out. In order to make their job of gardening easier, the hierling gardeners are trying to build up the walls around the garden (Church) so high that it now blocks out the sunlight.
But the Holy Spirit---the Divine Gardener--operates through those courageous enough to knock down those high walls, and allow the sunlight to enter. We do this with the blessings of God and the permission from the writings of the Church which state in the "Declaration on Religious Freedom" (December 7, 1965) that those of us who are educators are to train up people who will 'have a love for genuine freedom; that is people who will use their own judgment to make decisions in the light of truth, plan their activities with a sense of responsibility, and freely combine their efforts with others to achieve all that is just and true.'
God's freedom will not be boxed-in by the hierling gardeners. God is not in their pocket and God is not their robot. In just completing the Year of Paul, we saw that the Apostle of the Gentiles insisted that all follow the interior law of freedom. It is the gift of the God of freedom, etched in the hearts of humans--that gives us the right to act as we do. Our 'human dignity requires us to act through counscious and free choice, as motivated and prompted personally from within, and not through blind internal impulse or merely external pressure.' "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today" (December 6, 1965).
Praise the true God (not some vengeful monster)who initiated the Church because of love---the eternal Father, Christ the redeemer, and the unifying Spirit, who will bring about the full completion of this loving work, not in one generation, but in the Age yet to come.
Hey Qualis Rex, First of all,
Hey Qualis Rex,
First of all, please clear up for us whether you are calling yourself just like Jesus Christ when you call yourself Qualis Rex, as in the famous Latin phrase "Qualis pater, talis filius." (As is the father, so is the son.)
But actually I am only writing to ask you please to cite any anti-Catholic articles solicited by this, for you, "purportedly" Catholic and, for you, sad site (which I find such a gracious and a Catholic delight, so few have we left in anglo America). The only anti-Catholic sentiments and comments I find are those of Dr. Baguette and Gus and occassionally even Pete the Greek, and that Tom guy, even perhaps that delightful little drop of snow, and especially that Clint guy, but I am certain these comments and sentiments are unsolicited and given space in the holy spirit of patient charity.
Which specific articles do you discover here anti-Catholic and how?
just wondering I remain
your poorest servant
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Dear Friar Charles OSB, St.
Dear Friar Charles OSB, St. Benedict did not suscribe to the schisms occuring during his time therefore he established the Benedictine Order to assure that God be praised 24/7-365. The Benedictines were completely dependent upon God, self-sufficient in the earning of their daily bread and apparently today it is not the case if we are to learn anything from your ravings. Perhaps we can learn quite a bit from St. Benedict and the manner in which he lived his life. As one spans the globe and looks at all the Benedictines one would find that there are fewer each year following the Order that St. Benedict established. Modernism has taken over-yet another schism. One wonders who will follow St. Benedict and re-establish Praises to God 24/7-365.
Dear Tom Thank you very much
Dear Tom
Thank you very much for your learned comments and I am certain we discovered ourselves unknowingly within a union of prayer upon this great Feast of Our Holy Father Saint Benedict just passed.
your poorest servant
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Yes unfortunately wise people
Yes unfortunately wise people do die off, but take courage qualis, their children will replace them. Some of them may even be guided be the wisdom of their fathers and mothers and by listening to the Spirit, understand even more than the closed minded clerics of our current age. May you have peace and more understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
"Modernism" has nothing at
"Modernism" has nothing at all to do with NCR. It is a dated concept relating to the state of scholarship in Theology during the reign of Pius X. While some of the "Modernist errors" are still being debated, none of them are a focus of this newspaper. Learn the meaning of the jargon before you casually throw it out. (BTW, in some cases, the Holy Office which condemned certain modernist errors was plainly wrong - as modern scriptural scholarship has shown. There is no Beatitude that says "Blessed are the doctrinally orthodox. Indeed, ending the distraction which comes under the heading of "theological studies" is the best reason I know for ending celibacy in the priesthood so that these great minds have better things to do - like changing the occassional diaper or comforting a sick or scared child - both of which are most more spiritual than most of the drivel that has come out of the Holy Office for the past 1000 years).
I can only assume that Sister
I can only assume that Sister Joan is intentionally equating two entirely different situations in order to make her point. The only other option is that she actually believes what she has written.
Pope Benedict receiving President Obama is in no way the same as Notre Dame honoring him with a doctorate. Pope Benedict will receive the President, not as the head of the Catholic Church, but rather as the chief of state of the Holy See, the international diplomatic role that the Pope plays. In other words, the reception of President Obama is no different than the reception that would be given any other visiting head of state. It is diplomatic protocol, nothing more.
Now, no doubt Pope Benedict will use the opportunity to engage the President in discussion and will take the opportunity to gently, but no doubt clearly, point out the areas where the Church and the President disagree, and also point out those few areas where the President's policies are in line with the teachings of the Church. But, in no way can this be seen as the Pope honoring President Obama, any more than Pope John Paul II honored Yassir Arafat when he visited Rome. It is simply a diplomatic event, the reception by the Pope of foreign leaders. A courtesy, nothing more.
In the meantime, Sister Joan attempts to encourage us to mute our voices in the public square. To advocate justice, without advocating, or opposing, any particular system to bring that justice about. What utter nonsense. The Pope's upcoming encyclical (and how nice that Sr. Joan is able to tell us what it will say before she even has read it! Perhaps the Pope sent her an advance copy to get her approval?) will do as all encyclicals do -- set out the tenets and draw the lines. It is up to us, as faithful Catholics, to take those tenets and lines and put them into practice. We must raise our voices to be heard in the din of conflicting opinion, in a world dominated by secularism, in a society that believes in tolerance of immorality and the mutability of the truth. We cannot compromise, we must not compromise, with life. No doubt , Pope Benedict will remind President Obama of that truth, just as Pope John Paul the Great reminded the entire world of that truth in every opportunity he had.
Sr. Joan uses her last paragraph to remind us that the leaders of the Church have sinned in the past. No one denies that. But, it is that very sinfulness that impels us to speak up! If we see the types of sins that can be committed by men and women devoted to God, how much more horrific will be the sins of those who care nothing for God?! More importantly, if we can acknowledge our own sinfulness and seek forgiveness and conversion, while at the same time calling on the world around us to do the same, it is a powerful witness and one that is clearly in the tradition of the Apostles.
Sr. Joan might consider that passage from the Epistle of Saint James, "Faith without works is dead". Our faith must be given form in order for it to matter to anyone. It is a shallow and dead faith that says "Do justice", but that does not seek to inform and encourage people in the manner in which justice is done.
Finally, Sr. Joan says that, voicing our own positions while also respecting those who disagree, but who are "equally moral-minded" would help us to heal divisions in the Church and let us get along better with those who disagree with us. But, do we want to get along with people who murder innocent children (like Dr. George Tiller, one of the most accomplished mass murderers in history) or those who murder in general (like the man who killed Dr. Tiller)? Do we really want to get along with dictators who would be another Hitler (Achmadenijad of Iran) or Stalin (Chavez of Venezuela) or Mao (Kim Jong-Il of North Korea)? Do we want to encourage the perversion and trivialization of human sexuality which disguises itself as "tolerance"? Do we really want to sit back and allow the freedoms that citizens of the United States enjoy, and that have made this nation a beacon of light and hope to the entire world, be eroded and the free market system that has created the world's most successful economy be destroyed?
Someone who is a wimp rarely has many enemies. Indeed, weak people usually get along with everyone, they dont have the strength or courage to stand up for themselves and so they bow to everyone. This is the Church that Sr. Joan seems to want us to become. But, wimpy Catholicism is meaningless. Christ was no wimp, nor were His followers. They stood in the public square and spoke the truth, fearlessly, heedless of who they offended or angered. Can we, who claim to be followers of Christ, do any less?
It seems that Clint Green
It seems that Clint Green wants to compete with Sr.Joan as an essayist. No contest, either in style or in content. Facile distinctions between the Pope as head of state and catholic head do not stand against history, contemporary church politics nor, so called, "pastoral" interventions. The Pope is one person who represents the church and its presumed relations with state. There is no dictinction between the pope as head of state and head of church? Ask the 120 or so hierarchical reps who so assumed that right. Argue if you wish but resolution of an alternate point of view would lie in a constitutional distinction of church and state, denial of history and of hierarchical intent. Is there such a constitution, historical record of denial?
How many bishops, archbishops and cardinals insist on the right of catholicism's dictate in the public square and we docile followers to comply with their "foreign" influence in our states?
Sure Pope Benedict will obliquely admonish Obama, or "those" who do not hold to the absolutes of Catholic doctrine in its purity. But he will endorse those elements of congruity in perspective and policy and place a "door-stop" to keep open both the partnership of commonality and the potential for influence on Obama's "errancy".
Fr Jenkins and Notre Dame University along with the graduation class of 2009 signal the beauty of and indeed the future of Catholicism in America and around the world. These kids will look back on "their" day as a benchmark of humble pride in what it really means to be Catholic in America. There is an intrinsic commonality of President Obama and Catholics just as there is an intrinsic recognition around the world that Obama is good for us all. We need him. Not just US Americans but we Canadians and people of good will in Iran
and around the world in this time of so many crises.
In many respects I have criticized Pope Benedict and his Ratzinger persona. In this respect though I congratulate him and eagerly await his carefully crafted public remarks. Interesting.
Just as Mr. Green states that
Just as Mr. Green states that the Pope is seeing President Obama as a courtesy to another head of state, Notre Dame invited him as the first African American President of the United States. They did not invite President Obama to speak as a representative of the Catholic Church or to speak on the beliefs of the Catholic Church. It was more of an honor to Notre Dame that President Obama accepted the invitation, than an honorary degree was an honor to him.
First Dr. Baguette, then Gus,
First Dr. Baguette, then Gus, then Green!
Wow, my dear and Reverend Sister Chittister hit a trifecta here tonight!
Do you guys sit watching like vultures for her latest column to appear, and swoop down like vultures to rip it apart, like hyena laughing and cackling?
She has not published in weeks, yet rather than wondering why you immediately attack, and upon the flimsiest grounds, and with dishonor not only to her canonical office but by extension clearly to His Holiness the Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI?
Your words here, my dear brother Clint, though lengthy, are increasingly absurd and not isomorphic with reality, and I am deeply concerned for your well-being. Perhaps a month of silence at Saint Meinrad's inner cloister would do you well, a time for repentence and reflection . . .
Hugo Chavez another Stalin?? Dr. Tiller "one of the most accomplished mass murderers in history?" You write: "Sister Joan attempts to encourage us to mute our voices in the public square." Dearest brother Clint, someone with a history book might have done you a gracious and charitable service in muting your keyboard until you could run a fact check. No one has muted your public voice here, but could have done you a great kindness . . .
You write: "The Pope's upcoming encyclical (and how nice that Sr. Joan is able to tell us what it will say before she even has read it! Perhaps the Pope sent her an advance copy to get her approval?)" Brother Clint, I just read NCR's Vatican correspondent John Allen's article about the encyclical; the thing's an open secret in Catholic circles. Did you not get your own advanced copy? In any case you will be glad to know it is out Tuesday, with excerpts already well leaked to the press. It's about tolerance; it's about charity. It, as John Allen writes, contains the phrase reminding us that Catholic means synthesis.
Are you synthesizing yet?
You exhort: " as all encyclicals do -- set out the tenets and draw the lines. It is up to us, as faithful Catholics, to take those tenets and lines and put them into practice. We must raise our voices to be heard in the din of conflicting opinion, in a world dominated by secularism, in a society that believes in tolerance of immorality and the mutability of the truth. We cannot compromise, we must not compromise, with life."
How's that going for you, with the encyclicals Pacem in Terris, Evangelium Nuntiandi, Populorum progresio, Sacramentum caritatis (the lastr half, after you fell asleep), etc.?
You further declare irrefutable: "Pope John Paul the Great reminded the entire world of that truth in every opportunity he had." Yes, and so much better than that Polish guy that followed him. Too bad he only had a month, barely time to draft a plan to reform the Vatican Bank the evening of his death . . .
You end your rant with this call to warfare: "But, wimpy Catholicism is meaningless. Christ was no wimp, nor were His followers. They stood in the public square and spoke the truth, fearlessly, heedless of who they offended or angered. Can we, who claim to be followers of Christ, do any less?"
Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour, commands us to "Love your enemies!"
Are you loving your enemies, Clint? I cannot judge you, as Jesus commands us: "Judge not!" but I ask you to ask yourself. Each time I pray the Lord's Prayer, several times a day therefore, I find how very much my love and my forgiveness have failed and fallen short, as I pray that I may be forgiven in the measure I have forgiven. Is this wimpy of me, Clint?
I highly recommend you take the Sermon on the Mount retreat given so profundly by the Reverend Father John Dear, SJ, as I did a few months back, thank God here in my home state. I pray you might invite him to Saint Meinrad's for this purpose, my brother Clint. Father john unfolds for us fully the meaning of our Faith, and I urge you to attend this great and spiritual retreat with him, in synthesis, in union, of prayer. It set my feet upon a more certain path upon which to go forth in strength, with our gentle Lord Jesus Christ, to love those I would not love, to forgive those I could not forgive, to see the world as it is, and to go forth (and not fifth as in the past on a good day).
Go forth, brother Clint!
I remain
ever your least (not Great) servant and brother, forgive me please,
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Dear Brother Charles, It took
Dear Brother Charles,
It took me a moment to stop laughing after reading your opening comments. If I "swoop down like (a) vulture to rip" this article apart, you swoop down to defend it. Sometimes I wonder if you are not a "straw man" set up by NCR to defend the indefensible.
I see nowhere that you defend Mr. Chavez against my contention that he wishes to be another Stalin. Nor, do I find any defense of the late Dr. Tiller. But, then, how could one defend a man who murdered 60,000 babies in his all-too long career. I do believe that he is the most accomplished mass murderer in history (if one does not include state-sponsored mass murder as executed by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others of their ilk). Once again, there is no way possible to defend such wholesale slaughter and, though your tendency clearly is to defend such people, I am glad to see that your common sense won out and you did not. There is hope for you yet.
As to the upcoming papal encyclical, people will be able to read it to support any position that they wish. I do agree with John Allen that Catholicism is synthesis, but not compromise. There is a difference, but clearly you missed that. Synthesis is taking the best parts of ideas and using them to reinforce teachings and beliefs. Compromise is agreeing to change those beliefs and teachings in order to be more "tolerant" or in order to encourage the most followers. Christ did not compromise. As an example I suggest you read the Gospel of St. John, chapter 6. The Jews listening to Christ describe the Eucharist as His Body and Blood said "this is a hard teaching, who can accept it" and many of them went away and stopped following Him. Yet, He did not modify or compromise that teaching, despite the fact that many followers were followers no more as a result of it. I would expect a Catholic to understand that, but since you spend your time reading Sr. Joan and Fathers McBrien and Dear, I am not surprised you never got around to reading the Gospels.
You ask me if I love my enemies? Certainly I do. The most loving thing I can do is to pray for their conversion and to attempt to encourage them to reform. Indeed, it is a command of the Church that we practice fraternal correction. If I see a brother or sister going down a path that will lead them to trouble, or worse, I have an obligation to offer correction. Apparently, you believe that the most loving thing that can be done is to simply leave them in their sin and error lest I offend or anger them. Once again, if you had actually read the Gospels, you would see that Christ, Who loved all, was not afraid or timid when it came to standing up for the truth -- going so far as to call the Pharisees "whitewashed tombs" and to make a whip from cords and drive the money changers, who were stealing from pilgrims, out of the Temple. I suppose He did not love these folks since he angered, hurt and offended them?
Finally, some quick corrections. Sister Joan is NOT a reverend. John Paul the Great is John Paul II, NOT the first. A critique of Sr. Joan's commentary does not constitute an attack on her, nor does it constitute an attack on the Holy Father. How you make that connection escapes me, but then again, logic has never been one of the Left's strong suits.
Don't worry yourself about me, Brother Charles. I am quite well. I spend my time in prayer and on retreats productively, meditating and praying on the Fathers of the Church, on the works of great theologians like Cardinal Avery Dulles and Archbishop Fulton Sheen and the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus, among others, as well as seeking spiritual guidance from priests who love the Church and whom I know personally. Nonethless, I thank you for your concern, even if you are using that concern as rhetorical attacks on me.
I hope you had a blessed fourth of July.
Clint
Dear Clint, Your corrections
Dear Clint, Your corrections like the "theologians" that you refer to are a little pale! In fact these theologians seem to champion authoritarianism rather than reach authoritative solutions. I don't believe that there has been any great pope since John XXIII, but John Paul I had he lived may well have been one. The others since him although attempting to lead have lead more toward the thirteenth than the twenty first century.
It is too bad that you can not understand that many of your enemies have much to contribute to society, it is a totalitarian mind set that believes one must reform his enemies. Why not just pray for them and that you might be able to understand them? Could be that the reform you seek is of yourself. It is a sign of greatness when a person realizes that growth and understanding are either ever occurring events or one is faced with stagnation or worse as some believe that lack of growth causes an idle mind and you know where that might lead. Your obligation to correct particularly a child is valid but it is a bit arrogant to believe that one has an obligation to correct others when it is hard enough to correct ones self. I offer these points as food for your thought not as the "truth," but merely my opinion on so many of your regular communications on these boards. I hope that we can all remember that we are finite beings with opinions but that "the truth" is way beyond our understanding. It is our duty to seek more of what is truth but we will never know precisely what Christ or the Spirit or God the Father has on His great mind.
May you have peace and a little more understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Beautifully and well said,
Beautifully and well said, Dr. Porch, and I pray one day for your wisdom, your eloquence and your charitable restraint, a love in truth.
Dear Dr. Porch, Give me the
Dear Dr. Porch, Give me the corrections and the Theologians that Clint support. Good Dr. Porch are we to condone:
1) Catholics who are pro-choice?
2) Catholics who support and practise birth control other than supported by the Catholic Church?
3) Catholic females who left the Church to become ordained in their new religions because they did not have the intestinal fortitude to dialogue with their local Bishops about their cause for female priests?
4) Catholic married males who left the Church because they disageed with the Church and their local Bishops concerning celibacy and joined a religion which allows married priests. Never once do these Catholics make attempts at starting a dialogue with their Bishops to attempt to change what rankles them!
5) People who claim they are Catholics and at the same time throw darts at the Hierarchy at every opportunity to earn praise from those supporting such diatribes?
Married priests do not have
Married priests do not have to leave the Catholic Church. They just cannot use the teaching office if I'm not mistaken. Most stay Catholic.
It's rather difficult for females or males who want females as priests to talk to their bishops since it is forbidden by the vatican to talk about women in the priesthood.
According to the laws of the Catholic Church nothing can be dogma unless the people have accepted the ruling. Since they haven't accepted the rule of no artificial birth control in over 50 years I'd say it can't be dogma or the vatican will be breaking its own law.
My dearest Tom, Forgive me
My dearest Tom,
Forgive me please once more (as Our Lord suggests we forgive not seven but seventy times seven times) but might I suggest a reading of my beloved and wise old Abbot Primate, Archbishop Rembert Weakland's recent memoir Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church, which might provide some insight into your question #4 in particular, including in the scene of his conversation with the Supreme Pontiff of that time, in which he pleads this very issue as advocate in response to these same dialogues. That excellent treatise might also cast light upon your other queries, and I ask in exchange only your primary sources, please, as I remain ever,
your poorest servant
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Dear Clint, One stands amazed
Dear Clint, One stands amazed at reading some of the tripe posted on this board. Brother Charles is the leader of the band that will never cease to amaze all reading his garbage!
The postings remind me of one of my Protestant friends. His church congregation was from one of those who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church centuries ago. He told me one day that Jesus Christ has brothers and sisters-many of them, and all blood relatives as Mary and Joseph had sexual relations after Jesus Christ was born. He still believes in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ or so he says. We are asked to be tolerant of this nonsense. I continue to pray for my friend but to try to convince him that what he believes does injustice to his own religion is an exercise in futility!
Your postings support all that we as Roman Catholics have been taught! Keep the Faith and God Bless You!
I should be so blessed as to
I should be so blessed as to work for NCR; I am merely a lifetime reader, having begun at my father's knee as we chuckled over the ancient "ad lib" column. I also recall more clearly than this morning's muffin a full page photo of your Mr. Novak in love beads and long hair (for a balding fellow) preaching the Gospel of Peace of Jesus Christ, and not your gospel of Milton Freedman and the Chicago School of Economics, which, although you subscribe to as "free market" is exactly contrary to Our Holy Father's latest encyclical, which I urge you to read, and to convert unto the Roman Catholic Faith. Alternatively you might read for once the Holy Rule for Monks by Our Blessed Father Saint BEnedict.
Unfortunately in any case my writing is not of that high a caliber, of that keen an intellect, of that exacting a logic, of that great a heart, as is that of any NCR writer (with the possible exclusion of the new MSW) in particular this great spiritual author and authority, the Reverend Sister Joan Chittister OSB. How unbecoming of you therefore to speak with such little humility about our former head of American Benedictine Prioresses and most helpful writer of consoling, correcting, comforting and guiding spiritual works. This makes me doubt the quality of your spiritual preparation as a Benedictine, particularly in skipping over Our Holy Father Saint Benedict's twelve step program towards humility, which is not simply something out of the endeavors of the great Stuart Smalley, but then you admit you are a lay oblate, which apparently at Saint Meinrad's involves little more formation than a morning bearing a candle in church and a readily opened checkbook.
I strongly suggest you follow the daily reading of the Holy Rule for Monks by Our Holy Father Saint Benedict, read three times a year by the traditional arrangement.
It was you who arose to shout "j'accuse" at President Hugo Chavez (unlike our past incumbent, actually and undeniably elected), who among so many other acts of international largesse (including discount pricing his gasoline in our impoverished inner cities) most recently took up the slack when Bush recently reneged on promised aid to Nicaragua (so decimated by his dad, with uncounted Catholics killed, several of whom I knew personally. Care to see my slides?). We do not yet see such aggressive actions against Honduras despite the recent right wing, free market coup there.
As it was you who shout "j'accuse" that President Chavez, a beacon of hope to millions in Latin America is another Joseph Stalin, it is your duty to supply some slight evidence in support of your accusation. My questioning this absurdity elicits your evidence; it is not incumbent upon me to prove the negative. You must supply some proof of what you say. Or are you as usual simply talking out of your hat? In which case there really are no further grounds for discussion with one who puts Milton Freedman above His Holiness Pope Benedict XVi, and makes absurd statements contrary to fact with no evidence.
You equally made an extreme statement regarding the doctor shot to death inside a church, yet you discover to your satisfaction no need to support your ridiculous statement, which you now hedge confronted with its absurdity. Is there hope for you yet?
You further write: "As to the upcoming papal encyclical, people will be able to read it to support any position that they wish."
You wish to make it a treatise in the School of Milton Freedman, of which you are member, yet you cannot. And you cannot serve both God and mammon. There can be no compromise, no matter at what great length you write here upon the NCR blogspaces.
You do not love your enemies; you pray they become just like you. Qualis Clint talis inimicis. But I cannot sell out to your golden false free market god which has brought so great a misery to the majority of humanity.
Only for Reagan's ghostwriter Peggy Noonan is JPII called "the Great." Those of us who know realize the greater sanctity of the original, the First. Just today I have been at meals reading once more his collection of letters to persons of history, etc., entitled Illustrissimi, weeping for the great Church which might have been, and for the proposed reformation of the Vatican Bank begun the night he was killed, and for all the loss there was for ideological purposes, due to a lesser John Paul. We now in this new anti-free market encyclical Charity in Truth begin to recover our footing. We welcome as well the coming brief visit of our Pope and our fine President.
The good and holy and reverend Sister Joan Chittister OSB is indeed very reverend. Perhaps you have not learned to discern such a spiritual quality, just as you have not learned humility, even while claiming some relation to a Benedictine community. That being the case, you must display greater appreciation, humility, respect and love for our indeed very reverend Sister Joan Chittister OSB. To strip her of such honors is fortunately beyond your slight powers, and your attempt is again cruelly absurd, reflecting quite poorly only upon your own irreverent self.
You do not critique, falling as you ever do into the fallacy of ad hominen attacks, ad matris in the case of the reverend Sister Joan Chittister. But then logic, like charity, has never been your Freedman School's strongest suit.
I pray you find time to study Our Holy Father Saint Benedict and his Holy Rule for Monks, to learn humility and charity, to know him personally as you say you do certain priests. Read for instance what our Holy Father Saint Benedict writes about the place of priests!
without attack, merely exceeding fraternal concern, I remain
your poorest servant
frere charles du desert OSB Oblat (Subiaco Congregation)
An amusing collection of
An amusing collection of comments. I wish you luck if you believe that a Communist, such as Hugo Chavez, is a "beacon of hope" to the people of Latin America. Communism is a false promise, as should be evident to any true student of history.
As to Dr. Tiller, Fox News reports that he murdered over 60,000 unborn children. I'm sorry, but that is mass murder of the highest degree. It is the very definition of mass murder.
Pope Benedict's encyclical sets out principles, justice, mercy, compassion, charity, particularly for those who are less fortunate, for the poor and those in need. Those principles are at the very core of our Lord's message. However, the manner in which those principles are lived out remains at the prudential judgment of each individual and group (such as nation-states). Thus, the Holy Father may advocate a more socialist approach to economics, but that does NOT mean that all Catholics are obliged to accept that approach. It does mean that all Catholics are obliged to prayerfully and seriously examine and consider his statements and the reasons behind them, but at the end of the day, each Catholic is free to choose the manner in which he lives out the principles of justice, mercy, compassion and charity for those who are less fortunate. The free market works, if it is truly free to be unleashed without needless government intervention and regulation.
I find it terribly amusing to see how NCR has suddenly jumped on the Holy Father's bandwagon because they believe that he has written an encyclical in support of leftist economic and political ideas. So, NCR and its loyal readers will readily accept that teaching, and try to use it to say that the Pope has spoken definitively about the "fallacy" of the free market, while they ignore the teachings about which the Holy Father, and his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, THE GREAT, truly did speak definitively (e.g. absolute sinfulness of abortion, the inability to ordain women as priests, the profoundly disordered nature of homosexuality, the absolute opposition to gay "marriage", etc.). In other words, "cafeteria Catholicism" at its very worst, along with a profound misunderstanding of the nature of the Church's, and the Holy Father's, teaching office and authority.
Finally, being an Oblate of St. Benedict is not about using that life as a club against those who disagree with you. It would appear, from your writing, that you believe that you possess the only truth about living the Benedictine life as an oblate, but you are wrong. While I do criticize your statements of support for people and articles that are in direct opposition to the Church and her teachings (fair game, after all, if you opine on such blogs, your opinions are therefore open to critique), I do not presume to judge, for example, your formation. I do not presume to judge your dedication or devotion to the Benedictine life that you have been called to. I do not presume to judge how well you know our Holy Father, St. Benedict, nor how carefully or often you read the Holy Rule. Such things would be ad hominem attacks. I find it amusing that you criticize me for engaging in such attacks (without demonstrating how) and yet engage in the very same attacks upon me at every opportunity.
In any event, I am grateful to you, once again, for providing me an opportunity to attempt to correct falsity. I am also grateful to you for your fraternal charity.
Clint, I think you might want
Clint, I think you might want to use another source of information when it comes to Dr. Tiller's practice. FOX would have us believe that he specialized in women who woke up with head aches or foot cramps and decided to end their pregnancies. The reality is far far different and 95% of his practice dealt with catastrophic pregnancies like anancepholy and trisomy 13 amongst a host of other profound genetic abnormalities.
The families who consulted with Dr. Tiller in these difficult circumstances were treated with far more compassion than demonstrated by FOX followers such as yourself. In the main these were children who were wanted and loved by their parents, but these parents were faced with decisions that most of us will never have to face and on that basis alone should refrain from judging.
Let Dr. Tiller rest in what ever peace God chooses for him and leave off the mindless condemnation which serves no purpose and brings fresh pain to parents who have already had enough.
In all fraternal charity I am
In all fraternal charity I am obliged to tell you:
Ausculta fili to the precepts of Our Holy Father Saint Benedict.
Particularly regarding private property . . .
Being as loose as old Joe MacArthy with the commie brand, certainly you brand monasticism as communist as easily as President Chavez, perhaps with greater accuracy in the former case than in the later, but in either case fallaciously.
I find little to no fraternal charity in your comments.
Forgive me for this and rest assured of my most fervent prayers for your continued conversio mores as vowed.
your poorest and most dispossessed brother
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Dear Brother Clint, As you
Dear Brother Clint,
As you find amusing my own poor comments, you should be enthralled by those of our Holy Fater Saint Benedict, in particular those assigned for reading at meals in these days. If my old memory serves me well (I can remember a breakfast of forty years ago but not what with all confident accuracy was read at last night's meal), the end of Chapter 35 describes with what great care all utensils are returned to the cellarer at the end of one's assigned tasks; nothing is kept for oneself and all is returned, clean, to the community when the week of work is done.
Interestingly, today's reading of the Rule, from Chapter 36, declares unequivocably that above all and beyond all (or uncertain terms to that effect) the sick must be cared for, above any other thing, with pertinent Biblical quotations to support this non-negotiable assertion.
Our Holy Father Saint Benedict is otherwise a wonder of moderation, always hedging his advice with humanity, which is why he concludes his is a Rule for beginners, and people really serious about monasticism should read and follow Saint Basil, and yet in this case, that of the sick, there is little hedging, except to ask the sick not whine too much. Saint Benedict writes they must be cared for above and beyond any other thing, as Christ Himself.
Something to consider seriously as our President of these United States works to get health care for every American. Let us pray therefore in unison this goal may now be achieved at long last, at last, in time, in unison with the precepts of Our Holy Father Saint Benedict in his Holy Rule, Chapter 36.
I remain
your poorest, little brother
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
"Do we really want to sit
"Do we really want to sit back and allow the freedoms that citizens of the United States enjoy, and that have made this nation a beacon of light and hope to the entire world, be eroded and the free market system that has created the world's most successful economy be destroyed?"
In case you did not notice, Clint, the unemployment rate is close to 10% now, and is the direct result of the policies of a free market system gone haywire with greed. Do you propose more greed, tax cuts for the wealthy, as the answer and beacon of light and hope to the entire world?
Also, in case you did not know, there are a billion people starving in the world. What would you propose be done to eliminate such starvation, or would you desire to sit back and do nothing and let the free market system ignore that fact too?
It seems from your comment, Clint, that you have given a lot of thought to what you define as "wimp." Do you think it is wimpy to design programs or policies that take into account the weakest members, such as those starving, and to address that issue in a way that is truly Christian and compassionate? Do you think that is wimpy to actually care and do something to eliminate starvation? What if doing so required a new set of economic principles that did not fall into the category of capitalism or socialism? What if it took an entirely new approach to address the needs of the entire world's population? Would you be willing to defend such a system that was not purely capitalist or republican or right wing? Would you be willing to take a stand in the public square for the weak?
You say that "a wimp rarely has many enemies. Indeed, weak people usually get along with everyone, they dont have the strength or courage to stand up for themselves and so they bow to everyone. This is the Church that Sr. Joan seems to want us to become." You seem to be making Sr. Joan out to be without enemies, however, you stand out as her enemy from your comments that constantly ridicule her. You seem to think that you have the voice of a true Catholic and you equate yourself as not being a "wimp." "Christ was no wimp, nor were His followers." Is Christianity now boiled down to whether or not one is considered a wimp? How many times did Peter wimp out on Jesus? Was Peter at the foot of the cross with Jesus? The women were not wimpy, but were at the foot of the cross, so I should define women as not wimps, but men are wimps? Peter was not so fearless was he? In the public square he denied Jesus three times, just as Jesus predicted he would.
Faith is a journey and a process of discovery and this can be seen clearly in the Gospels, in especially about Peter. If you understand that Faith is in process of discovering the presence of God in your life through Jesus Christ, in Him and with Him, you will know that Faith has many levels and many steps of ascendancy and has nothing to do with being wimpy, unless one clings to self, one's ego or the courage derived from one's ego to prematurely enter the public square or to end their spiritual growth by clinging to the dead letter of the law. Many enter the public square making pronouncements and appear to not be wimpy, but underneath the supposed strength or courage is nothing but dust and empty words. The Pharisees also thought they were not wimpy and often would enter the public square in an attempt to trick the Lord.
True faith in God acknowledges our need for the Divine and the grace that comes from a conscious relationship with the Divine. There is nothing dead or wimpy about a Faith that relies upon the strength and grace of the Lord. Sr. Joan does not say to bow down to everyone, but to serve the Lord is to serve one another.
You seem to think that being a macho or bully is Christ-like, and that is a sad mistake on your part. Perhaps you should try to not be a bully or macho man towards the followers of Jesus Christ, such as Sr. Joan who has devoted her entire life to service to the Lord and to the Church.
Let me put it this way. What
Let me put it this way. What did Communism or Socialism ever create? The United States became the world's wealthiest, most productive, most generous nation, due to the free market. In less than 300 years, a nation of pilgrims and wanderers looking for a fresh start, became the greatest nation on earth. We did that by encouraging people to improvise, to invent, to create, to take risks, to build, in short, to be entrepreneurs. We created a nation that supported people like that, that gave them incentives and did not tax those earnings at rates that result in punishing the successful.
The market has peaks and valleys, like all things do. The US has been through several depressions and recessions, yet always emerged stronger than before. Until the Great Depression, that is. The social welfare system that FDR put into place (which failed to end the Depression, after all. It was World War II that ended the Depression) created serious problems. For the first extended time, the US engaged in a widespread policy of paying people who were unemployed, thus transferring wealth without transferring or creating any goods or services. Such a system cannot endure. As the 20th century went on, the US gradually went from a robust nation with a market-based economy, into a nation of people who look to the government to provide for them, even companies do that now (as evidenced by the massive bailouts of banks and car manufacturers, etc.). That is not what made the US great. It is not what will make the US great again.
I propose that we eliminate starvation by teaching people to feed themselves. I propose that, instead of giving food away (which undermines the market for grain in nations like Kenya, where local, native farmers cannot compete with free food and with farmers being subsidized by the US government), that we eliminate such subsidies and we allow people to trade on a fair basis. I propose that we eliminate tariffs and protectionist policies (such as found in the US steel industry) designed to protect American businesses from foreign competition. I propose that we eliminate unions as we know them now and that we eliminate collective bargaining agreements that back companies into the wall and artificially raise costs of producing items (mostly due to retirement payouts and artificially high wages) while not increasing the quality or quantity of the items produced. I propose that the US (and international) government's role be reduced to one of oversight of fair trade practices. I propose that the markets be allowed to function as they were designed to do, encouraging initiative, rewarding those who create and produce and giving everyone a chance to take part in, and benefit from, the creation of wealth.
The one thing that I do not propose is that we do more of the same. Socialism leads to stagnation. When was the last time Europe produced anything truly new and ingenuous? Capitalism, the free market system, encourages creativity and ingenuity. I propose that we allow the market to operate again, just as our forefathers in this country did. It made America great. It can make the world great too.
Clint, you are giving lip
Clint, you are giving lip service to a system that has gone crazy with greed and with no regard for people.
Now, when you talk about "I propose that we eliminate unions as we know them now and that we eliminate collective bargaining agreements that back companies into the wall and artificially raise costs of producing items (mostly due to retirement payouts and artificially high wages) while not increasing the quality or quantity of the items produced."
Are you suggesting that union workers should not have retirement plans or decent wages? It seems you are more interested in what is produced than in the producers. Is this what makes a country great? What makes a country great? It's wealth? It's people?
You are off your rocker if you think that eliminating unions and collective bargaining agreements is in anyone's interest, other than the business and its appetite for greed! I will have you know that my husband is a union worker and if it were not for the union there would be nothing but slave wages in this country, as well as more accidents and deaths to workers. His union provides training on a regular basis as well as a pay rate that is a living wage. Believe me, we are not rich and there are times when he is out of work and he does not get paid for any holidays either or vacation time. Non-union workers in the building trades are not as skilled and are more likely to be in accidents or cause accidents that end up costing lives as well as money and it takes them a longer amount of time to do the job.
Your view of what should be done is TOTALLY for ONLY the business and not for the WORKER. This is the problem. This is where the issue must be addressed and your answers do not address putting people to work and encouraging creativity, but just serve the needs that are one-sided for the business owner to profit and capitalize off the workers.
Unions helped build this country. Without the unions this country could not have grown and its people thrived. A well paid worker can buy the products that are being sold.
The most creativity from capitalism in the US lately has been Enron's and Madoff's type of creativity which is a form of stealing from this country's people. Without oversight and regulation there will be slave wages and a labor force that is used up and we will see a lowering of the standard of living as well as the lowering of the quality and quantity of life in this country for its people.
You are proposing a sick capitalism that refuses to consider the worker and his/her family.
You "propose we eliminate starvation by teaching people to feed themselves." If they have no food at the moment, how can they feed themselves? Tell me, Mr. Clint, how would you feed yourself if you had no access to food?
There are programs in which loans with no interest are given to people to start their own businesses. People need seed money to get things started and they would need training in how to develop a living for themselves. That is not what you are proposing though. You are saying that giving food to people who are starving hurts the free market. Well then, as a Christian what should be changed in order to feed people who are starving? Can you at least help out people who are starving right now? Can you be creative and compassionate and make adjustments to your current beliefs in capitalism so that people will not starve?
I am not against capitalism, but I am against a capitalism that is selfish and that does not consider the worker and his/her family and the world of which it is a part. In Europe people have more free time than we do here in the USA. They do not have to worry about losing their home to pay for health care costs should they get very sick. They can go get an education without going into debt.
Everyone does not have the same opportunities in this country. If you know the right people you can get a job easily. In a lot of small businesses family members are in positions in which they are not doing much of anything and they are paid much more than the workers who are producing the products and servicing the accounts. Perhaps if businesses were truly fair to the workers in wages and benefits we would not have to worry about socialism. A capitalism run amok with greed and favoritism and nepotism is asking for people to rise up against them and their injustice towards workers.
If anything we need more unions in this country to break the cycle of capitalistic greed that has taken over this country.
I have another point to make
I have another point to make Clint. You said: "the US engaged in a widespread policy of paying people who were unemployed, thus transferring wealth without transferring or creating any goods or services. Such a system cannot endure."
Unemployment insurance is a good thing, especially if you are unemployed. Heaven forbid you ever find yourself unemployed. Companies pay into unemployment and the employee pays into it as well. It's a good insurance plan. Do you have any insurance btw Clint? Do you have homeowners insurance, car insurance, health insurance? Do you think these services are any good, or that we should do away with them altogether? Have you ever had to submit a claim for hospital bills, a car that was in a wreck, a house that caught fire? Heaven forbid anything bad happen to you as a result of some calamity. Who will you ask to help you out? Will you accept any help? How would you feel about so many things if you were the one who was hungry, without a job, without prospects for work, homeless, in debt to the point of bankruptcy due to the high cost of hospital and medical bills? I just wonder what tune you'd be singing if you had to face being unemployed.
You also said you "propose that we allow the market to operate again"... You also said "I do not propose is that we do more of the same." Who is disallowing the markets to operate? You contradict yourself by saying you do not propose "we do more of the same."
All you have proposed is measures that further squeeze the middle class into paying more than the fair share of taxes, eliminating even unemployment insurance, eliminating unions, eliminating the voice of the people in this country that are more important than your brand of Milton Friedman free market economics which would do more to ruin lives, reduce wages and create more poor. What is astounding is that your view is a proposal that is anti-people and serves only the interest of greed, or as you like to call it, wealth. But the wealth that would supposedly be created from your ideas is not really wealth at all for the people, the workers under such a system where they would have no say at all regarding wages and businesses would do as they wished.
Businesses obviously do need regulations, because too many times over the years business owners have become tyrants and essentially slave owners or slave drivers paying low wages and increasing hours, even employing children until the law was changed.
Businesses need regulations just like the roads need State Police to ticket speeders and others who are driving while intoxicated. Businesses need regulations because they've proven that without them they would have people working for slave wages and they would take all the profit for themselves. This is essentially what American businesses did recently with NAFTA. They took jobs out of the US and sent the work to China where they work for slave wages in sweat shops and working conditions not even fit for animals let alone human beings. This is what US companies have been doing and this is what has to stop.
"That it is the function of
"That it is the function of churches to form the consciences of their members who seek to lead moral lives in their societies, rather than to take political sides against particular politicians or political systems."
What a revolutionary idea. But, wouldn't that be scary? It seems questionable that many bishops have a realistic sense of what conscience is in the real world, judging from how they manifest conscience in running the politics of their fiefdoms.
"That it is the function of
"That it is the function of churches to form the consciences of their members who seek to lead moral lives in their societies, rather than to take political sides against particular politicians or political systems
It is a pity Father Jenkins did not practise this and instead of giving an honorary degree in Law to the President had invited him to hear Father John Corapi {five university degrees should be sufficient academic credibility for the intelligentsia] speak on the Church's teachings on abortion and why it is important for the health and well being of civil society.
Mother Teresa was asked by a journalist whay she thought of abortion I have never forgotten her response
"Abortion is the death of conscience."
Great analysis of the
Great analysis of the situation. It always amazes me that so frequently we turn to civil authorities to enforce moral norms that the Church cannot properly teach its members. There are so many moral issues that we as Catholics should hold as basic beliefs but all of the turmoil appears to be centered on one "sacred" issue. No wonder emerging churches where people of faith can share their agreements and disagreements in open dialogue are more common today than ever before. We need to cease drawing lines in the sand and open ourselves to dialogue as a means of understanding the paradoxes in life and faith.
Dear Anonymous, Only a
Dear Anonymous,
Only a universal Church can "cease drawing lines in the sand and open ourselves to dialogue as a means of understanding the paradoxes in life and faith." Perhaps current Catholics who do not attach the word Roman to their catholicism can accomplish that form of understanding, but an authoritarian will never succeed.
Peace,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Sr Joan Chittister is one of
Sr Joan Chittister is one of my heroines. Years ago HEARD and saw her address a conference at Chittaqua, NY. I had never before seen her. i was spellbound. i continue to be more than impressed.
thank you sister for taking a stand for reason, and defending women in the church.
Even at the age of 6 or 7, in sacred heart school in Waterbury Connecticut. I noticed things that were out of balance and just plain wrong in my young, but opinionated eyes.
Priests had shinny new shoes......the Nuns had holes in their shoes.
Mere alter "BOYS" were allowed on the alter during the holy Sacrifice of the Mass.........the Nuns were only allowed on the alter " TO CLEAN"
There are many ways to read
There are many ways to read this "Commentary" by Sister Chittister. And there are many who will read it. I hope our bishops read it and I hope they pay particular attention to this statement.
". . . it is the function of churches to form the consciences of their members who seek to lead moral lives in their societies, rather than to take political sides against particular politicians or political systems."
I hope our bishops examine their teachings on all moral issues and they begin to help form the consciences of their members not just on one "life" issue, however important that may be, but on all "life" issues. If the morality of just one "life" issue is exclusively taught the morality of all other issues is diminished and, most importantly, the morality of the "beginning of life" is diminished.
It is not taking political
It is not taking political sides for Bishops to reaffirm catholic teaching so the Catholic faithful will not be confused when a Catholic University freely gives an honorary degree in Law to a man who has consistently supported measures in the legislature that support abortion and who says he will continue to do so and has continued to do so having now extended abortion provision fundinf to be a part of overseas aid programs.
Post new comment