Barnhardt, Dolan, schism

Ann Barnhardt had another conniption fit, this time over Timothy Dolan. Now, I agree with Ann about the general emasculation of the Church. I don’t get as dramatic about it as she does…sometimes she gives the impression that if she actually met the priest of her dreams, built like Carpenter Jesus driving teh gayz and heretics out with a whip, she’d spread ‘em like a randy Randian heroine…which would be embarrassing for both parties I’m sure, not to mention a mortal sin. I figure that in this culture, even to become a priest requires quite a bit of fortitude, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt when possible. Here’s one doing it right. And here are some folks who aren’t.

Likewise, “barefooted lesbian wannabe-witch-priestess does a pagan dance on the altar with a bowl of incense” makes a lot of assumptions about intent. Yes, that’s what it looks like, and yes, that’s not a woman’s job or physical place, but you don’t know. [UPDATE: more info submitted...and "4 directions" and "Zen meditation" = not Catholic, period. If it looks like a priestess, and calls quarters like a priestess... but if they just spent umpteen dollars to create sacred space, why is somebody doing it the low-rent way?]. Likewise, I have no trouble with the notion of a GLBT ministry; they’ve got a problem, and they should be ministered to. Realistically, I know it’s quite likely that said ministry isn’t offering aids on how to be celibate or deal with same-sex attraction. In that case, the problem is heresy. But that’s always the problem. There they are singing the hideous “All are welcome” (instead of the Introit, no doubt…what IS the Introit for the re-dedication of a church?). The liturgy is weak, and the rest follows from that, particularly the emasculation. In the two Extraordinary Form parishes I’ve sung in, men outnumber women in the Schola, while in Ordinary Form parishes, you practically have to bribe men to sing (as I’m being bribed.). Now, the problem with heresy is that it needs to be fought with catechesis and liturgy. You can’t just assume that people are heretics by looking at them, and you can’t throw them out for being heretics; if we did that, any more, there’d be no Church. You have to keep the poison from spreading, and correct the problem (something that the bishops have been most lame about in re Pelosi, Sebelius, et al). But unlike a blogger, a bishop can’t go off half-cocked and make assumptions about where people are at. That’s not kissing the world’s heinie; that’s making the most charitable assumption about a soul in need.

Then there’s her schism prophecy. Here’s the old part:

There will be, at some point, an informal schism. The Catholic Church in America will quietly acquiesce to the Obama regime in order to keep the money flowing and the 501(c)(3) slavery provision intact, and will thus cease to be Catholic. The TRUE Church will then be cut off from the mainstream and go underground. This cleavage will almost perfectly align with the Order of the Mass. The Novus Ordo “new Mass” parishes will surrender to the Obama regime because the Novus Ordo Mass was an invention and a tactical maneuver by the Marxist-homosexualist infiltrators in the 1960s. The Traditional Latin Mass parishes, and those priests, religious and laity who pray the Latin Mass will remain faithful to Our Lord, will go underground, and will eventually be hunted, imprisoned and killed.

This is the latest iteration:

This is why I fear that there will be a quiet schism in the Church, and that it will happen soon. Dolan and his politicking bovine excrement is going to lead the Church in the United States off the edge of the cliff in the name of “compromise” and “tolerant dialog”, and in doing so will render the Church no longer in union with the Chair of Peter, and thus no longer Catholic. Once that apostolic break is made, the churches that go with Dolan will no longer have valid Masses and the Eucharist will not be present in those churches. At that point, there will literally only be a few hundred valid Masses celebrated in the entire United States per week. Many people will be many, many hours drive away from the closest Mass. Satan will run wild in the land.

Now, what’s odd about this is that a while back Ann was warning her readers about Donatism. But here she is making a Donatist argument: that churches that roll over and pay for Obamacare will not confect a valid Eucharist. WTF? (“What’s that, Father?”) As long as there’s a valid apostolic succession, the proper words and the proper material, it’s good. Now, I partially buy her argument about informal schism. It takes a certain seriousness about the faith to do Latin Mass, and in my experience, the EF community is more serious about doctrine…which is not necessarily to say that the OF community are bad Catholics, but if push comes to shove, more are likely to roll over. What makes this less likely, and what I think will be the salvation of the faith, is the new Catholic media, which is by and large doctrinally conservative, and which has take on the job that priests don’t want to do: catechesis. You’ve got folks watching EWTN and listening to Catholic radio, and reading the Catholic blogosphere (and it might just be my sources, but I seldom come across a liberal Catholic blog) … and what they’re seeing is that their priests need some encouragement, so they’re doing the encouraging (even when it means dropping a dime to the Bishop).

There have been times in the Church’s history where survival of the Magisterium was very tenuous. In the early days, being elected Pope was equivalent to a death sentence. Then you had the Babylonian Captivity of the late-14th century, where at one point there were THREE rival Popes. Now, are you sure that all the Ts were crossed in your priest’s line of apostolic succession?  Or do you assume that whatever needed fixed got fixed? For that matter, if Europe turned on Christianity, it could well be that the Bishop of Rome was no longer the Pope (because a bishop would no longer be allowed to LIVE in Rome). The Church and its Magisterium will continue, somewhere, in the jungles of Africa if need be. It’s altogether possible that someday we’ll look at slacker priests and choirs singing David Haas, and think of “the good old days” when there actually were priests and music. And with that bit of conjecture, I’d like to steal Ann’s prayer:

Dear God,
Please, please, please let Jeffrey Quick be totally and completely wrong and make him eat crow by the bucketful every day for the rest of his life.
Amen.

UPDATE 2/22. Looking at her latest, I’ve decided that Barnhardt’s intellectual blind spot is her absolutism. She posts a homily by Fr. Sammie L Maletta Jr. about the HHS mandate, and then says, “He starts out pretty well, gets his hellfire and brimstone on a little – which is good. But then at the very, very end, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he JUST. DOESN’T. GET. IT. The man is totally, completely and thoroughly whipped.” What constitutes “whipped”? Saying, “Obama, let us be Catholics!” She’s right, of course, that there’s no “let” about it; her point about always being free to do God’s will is solid. But…this guy did a whole homily! Most of us just got the reading of the bishop’s letter. He faced the strong possibility of being kicked around by his congregants. Do the times demand more? Surely. Is this guy actually ahead of the curve? From what I’ve heard and seen, I suspect so. But Ann is very “He who is not for me is against me,” (MAtt. 12:30) and I don’t think she has the rank to make such a statement.

To my lady friends, re the Issa hearing

You’ve been punked by the Huffington Post and Planned Parenthood.

They showed you a picture of an all-male panel. That panel was all clergy, of various faiths…which, for various doctrinal and historical reasons, is a male-heavy profession. There was a second panel, after the Democrats walked out, which contained 2 women, one of whom was a doctor.

Still, you say, how do men have a right to tell me whether I can use birth control? Well, they weren’t discussing birth control; they were discussing freedom of conscience. Nobody is talking about restricting access to contraception. It’s an absolute non-starter, politically. If there were enough women interested in making contraception illegal to do so, they wouldn’t be using it, and thus there wouldn’t be an issue worth making laws about. And single men aren’t going to get behind such a law, because contraception makes it possible for them to use you (and vice-versa). Not to mention that there’s a mess of caselaw in the way, and such an attempt would be swatted down faster than you can say Griswold v. Connecticut. However, lying and saying it’s about your rights was a good way to fire up the base, wasn’t it?

Me, I’m pro-choice on everything short of murder. It is your body, after all, so it’s up to you to decide what to put in it: raw milk, cocaine, hormone pills, penises, tobacco, food supplements, Oreos deep-fried in peroxidized fat…it’s all fine by me. I’m even a squish about things like the IUD and the morning after pill that are technically abortifacients but do their thing at or near the time of conception. I wouldn’t use them, but I’m not into your business enough to say that you can’t.

But I’m a little mystified by this notion that you have a “right” to free contraception, and that if you can’t get it free, your rights are being violated. How did you ever survive that violation of rights over the past umpteen millennia?  Yes, you have a natural right to pick leaves off the contraception bush and eat them. (Apparently the ancient Greeks had such a bush, which is now extinct.) But you don’t have a natural right to force me to be a contraception-bush farmer. I’m a 2nd-Amendment fundamentalist; does that mean I have a right to free ammunition, or that I have a right to force Mennonites and other pacifists to buy it for me? Of course not!

And I also don’t understand why (actually I do understand why, but it’s not an explanation you’ll accept) it’s the Catholics who have to finance other peoples’ sins. Where is the outrage over the Amish and Christian Science exemptions in Obamacare? Why is nobody outraged over the Amish not having to pay Social Security tax if they work for other Amish? They might work for English later, or change their minds and take the dole…it’s patently unfair. How come they have their own schools? What about the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their exemptions. Why is it that a Wiccan coven can run a church in a residential neighborhood in violation of zoning laws? Why are you so wrapped up in the plight of a few people who can buy their own birth control or quit working for a Catholic employer? It’s not like we’re draftees in our employment, though the current job market makes it seem so at times.

I’m told that the personal is political, or the political is personal, or however it goes. So, ladies… since I and folks like me are the people who fund Catholic institutions…tell me, why must I buy you an abortion? Don’t deal in generalities; get specific. Better still, come to my place and take my stuff and sell it to buy abortions for poor women;  put your bodies where your mouths are.

ADDENDUM: More details on the circus.

“Holy Love”? Hmm, maybe not.

During this time, Maureen’s husband, Paul Sweeney, was skeptical about the locutions. He was an active parishioner at St. Brendan’s Church and had attended many of the group’s early meetings. Although he was a devout Catholic, he had no interest in becoming more involved with Maureen’s alleged locutions. To resolve this problem, the Blessed Mother prompted one of the group’s members to deliver a message to Donald Kyle, a former police officer, requesting him to join the ministry.

By the early 1990s, Maureen was spending more time with Don Kyle than she was with her husband. After asking Don to accompany her on a trip to Florida, Maureen found herself inseparable from his side. Soon after their trip to Florida in the summer of 1993, Maureen moved out of the house and filed for separation. Several months later, Paul filed for a divorce, which was granted in May 1995. Don and Maureen were eventually married in February 1997.

Hmmm, the “BVM” pimping a new husband for somebody? That’s enough for me. I’ll bet it was enough for Bp. Lennon too.

Kresta v. Rahe, 2012

Al Kresta was fulminating about this article (and another similar one) on his show this afternoon, which suggested that the American bishops got what they deserved with the HHS mandate mess. He was carried away with it enough that I kept clicking the radio off and then back on. I’m going to take his points in no particular order.

1. Kresta says that government was not a result of the Fall. Huh? Yes, man had dominion over the animals, and God had a one-law government in Eden. But perfected man has no need of government, as he won’t violate his neighbor’s rights, and he will help his neighbor. Under King Jesus, our wills will be aligned with God’s; is it government when everyone is doing what the ruler wants anyway? Now, that the Fall made government necessary does not make government a bad thing; far from it. But governments are run by fallen people. So, for that matter, is the Church. But the State does not have the Magisterium.

2. Kresta says “It’s the wrong time” to criticize the bishops. OK, let’s give credit where credit is due. The quality is risen in the past 10 years or so, and the response of the bishops to the HHS mandate has been nothing short of magnificent. I’ve got their backs on the battlefield. But… this is an act of repentance, and while they’re now on the straight and narrow, it is still legitimate to suggest that we got here through specific erroneous beliefs. That “we” applies to the laity as well as the bishops, but I would suggest that the reason the bishops are finding backbone is that the laity is learning the faith through lay evangelization, and are insisting they act like bishops and priests. EWTN and the blogosphere are doing the clergy’s job for them, and that’s not right, but better that than that the job not be done at all, or that “Catholicism” be defined by that well-known devout Catholic, Nancy Pelosi. Yes, the bishops opposed Obamacare as passed. But they supported healthcare overhaul, and did so in a way that led directly to this.

Here’s the problem: a good end can not be achieved by bad means. Per CCC 1903: “Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it.” How can governments be said to act for the common good when half of all citizens contribute nothing to that government? How can a state be morally licit when it takes wealth from some at gunpoint to give to others, whether they be crony capitalists or the voting poor? What empowers a government to perform acts which would be clearly sinful if performed by any other group of people? How is human dignity served by the financial enslavement of generations not yet born; where is the concern for the unborn at budget time?

The rot goes back to Luigi Tapanelli, who invented the nonsensical term “social justice”. (“Society” is not a moral actor, so how can it be just or injust?) The events of 1848 were much like the events of 1968, and in both cases, the Church tried to accomodate the Zeitgeist. Rahe calls out Cardinal Bernardin and his “seamless garment” (The body is a seamless garment too, but note Matt. 18:8.). I don’t see it at all as an attack on “the bishops” as “these guys sitting in the chairs right now.” but rather as a whole history of failure to act, with a few exceptions (like shutting up Fr. Coughlin?) Indeed, Rahe’s piece ends on a positive note; it’s very possible that bishops will soon “get” personal freedom again. But it won’t happen unless we talk about principles.

Unitarians, Catholics and HHS

God bless all the folks who have come out in support of the Catholic Church’s right not to subsidize sin. And God bless (with His rod) the folks who so don’t-get-it that they actually came out in support of the government in this matter. It’s pretty much the usual suspects, and there are all kinds of snark I could make on each one. But I’m going to concentrate on just one in this post: the Unitarian Universalist Association. They should know better, I will show that they do know better, and my wife had to set one of their congregants straight yesterday.

The Seven Principles of the U-U Church include “The inherent worth and dignity of every person” (unless they’re preborn, apparently) and “The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.”  If this isn’t a matter of conscience, I don’t know what is. U-Us are in general so supportive of the right of conscience that you can believe pretty much anything and still be a U-U (excepting, again, the belief that abortion is murder). But if you want more clarity, here is a resolution from 1982:

Personal Religious Freedom

WHEREAS, the central issues for religion include the beginning, duration, nature and meaning of life, the extent to which individuals can be in control of their own lives and bodies, and the moral and ethical responsibility of individuals to the lives and bodies of others; and
WHEREAS, the 1982 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association reaffirms our heritage of personal religious freedom of belief and acknowledges as one of its tenets the right and responsibility of persons of all ages to decide and act upon these religious issues according to their own conscience and faith, without government interference or invasion of privacy;

BE IT RESOLVED: That the 1982 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association calls upon Unitarian Universalists and all individual groups, both religious and secular, of like mind to oppose attempts for legislative policy changes that would limit the free exercise of this, our religious heritage; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That this Assembly calls upon the governments of the United States and Canada to oppose all attempts to legislate such limitations.

Now, the HHS contraceptive mandate quite clearly bears on “beginning… of life, the extent to which individuals can be in control of their own lives and bodies.” It could be that this was meant to be a weasel-word support of the right to abortion. But since they’d expressed that much more clearly 4 years previously, I have to take them at their word here.  Neo-Catharism (not breeding) is apparently a tenet of Unitarianism.  They are extremely pro-reproductive-freedom. But that doesn’t negate their conscience statement. Nor does this: “we believe that, regardless of income, every person has the right to all reproductive health information and basic services”. They may believe in the right to free birth control, but it doesn’t follow from that that any particular entity needs to provide it. Indeed, one might ask: if there are Catholic hospitals, where are the Unitarian free women’s clinics? Why haven’t they put their money where their mouths are?

But the Unitarians have been more than happy to have their freedom of religion protected by the government.  In First Unitarian Church v. Los Angeles – 357 U.S. 545 (1958):

Solely because they refused to subscribe oaths that they do not advocate the overthrow of the Federal Government by force, violence or other unlawful means, or advocate the support of a foreign government against the United States in the event of hostilities, petitioners were denied tax exemptions provided by the California Constitution for real property and building used solely and exclusively for religious worship.

In my own back yard, we had Unitarian Universalist Church of Akron v. City of Fairlawn, Ohio, 2000-01. The city decided that the U-Us could not build a fellowship hall on their land (owned before a zoning change), and backed down under legal pressure.

But the religious liberty strain of classical liberalism, which was so much a part of their tradition for so long, seems to have fallen by the wayside. Of all the religious groups that filed amicus briefs in the recent case of Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC (unanimously decided for plaintiff), the UUA was the only one to pick the losing side.

What makes this particularly odd is the the U-Us have become a haven for neo-pagans and Wiccans, who have a long history of religious persecution. They’re the growing edge of Unitarianism, since there’s no longer the pressure to “be something, and Unitarian is the least you could be” and religious atheists are in style and no longer need to blow off several hours a week not-worshipping their non-god. Pagans have benefitted directly in such cases as Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah 1993 508 U.S. 520. So why aren’t the pagan elements in the UUA fighting to keep the church on the side of freedom? I suspect that reproductive issues, being one thing that most U-Us can agree on, have become a defining doctrine of the faith. And Catholics stand against that. But there’s more than disagreement there. One step in my own conversion involved the observation of the visceral hatred many Pagans hold for Catholicism, way beyond any historical explanation (I’ll see your Burning Times and raise you a Coliseum.) I decided that fierce irrational Satanic hatred meant that there was a power in the Church worth paying attention to.

Anyway, while I don’t respect the U-Us, I respect their right to worship as they please, and to not be commanded at gunpoint to perform acts which they consider morally repugnant. I just wish they would give me the same respect.

Komen-tary

To my lady friends who are having the vapors over the Komen decision:

1. I’m seeing a lot of “Punish Komen” thoughts, including going after their corporate sponsors. If breast cancer is your real concern, do you really want to do that? Is your real motivation in doing that to make sure that increased contributions by pro-lifers don’t have an effect?

2. Planned Parenthood claims to provide “lifesaving care for women where Planned Parenthood is their only source of health care.”. I doubt that. There are few if any places in the country without Medicaid or some other charity care. Besides, I thought Obama fixed that. And Planned Parenthood is not in the mammogram business — and rightly so, given that their name is not Women’s Health Services.  If PP is just serving as a pass-through point for Komen money, why can’t Komen designate a different pass-through point, one where there will be no danger of money being skimmed off to support a procedure the majority of Americans oppose? Kaiser, maybe?  Might it be because the breast cancer service is the fig leaf over PP’s bloody business? As for contraception, Barry Obama and Katie Sebelius have that covered, no matter what you or your employer thinks.

3. There is no reason this can’t be a win-win for breast cancer. Pro-lifers who had a conscience problem with Komen can now contribute. Pro-abortion folk who think it really important that PP do breast exams can donate directly to PP…and can use their money to make certain that the exams actually get done, instead of going to other procedures (though I note that PP’s online donation page has no way of earmarking a donation for non-abortion services). We could end up with MORE money to fight breast cancer…and how is that a bad thing?

But of course this isn’t about breast cancer. The reason you’re so upset is because it’s an instance of a private foundation caving to public pressure on the abortion issue. You don’t like that the culture is turning against you…. which is why the courtesan media have tried to make this about “a politically-motivated investigation by one crank in Congress”. Well, when Congress appropriates money for something and evidence surfaces that perhaps that money is not being used for intended purposes, and the folks you’re giving to may be involved in illegal activities, don’t you think the recipient should be investigated? At least if they aren’t America’s abortion monopoly?

Believe me, I’m sympathetic. You’ve been living under the protection of Roe…, er, Dred Scott, and here are these upstart abolitionists in Oberlin who won’t return your property, the body you have a right to. It’s enough to make you want to start your own country.

UPDATE 2/3: Contributions to Komen are up 100% over the past 2 days; I hope that’s not just a blip of feelgood. Meanwhile the drunken clown Cleveland councilman Zack Reed is talking about pulling their permit for the annual run. Like I said, these folks don’t really care about breast cancer.

UPDATE 2/3. The ball-less bastards caved. I wonder if Simcha Fisher misses her $10 yet? Consider spending your charity dollar at one of these organizations. And no more pink. It’s just a paler shade of red.

UPDATE 2/7 And Karen Handel is out.