Daily Archives: May 8, 2009

Holy Father says Right to Life and Right to Conscience are Inalienable

Of course, this means that governments cannot take away right to conscience. It does *not* mean that members of a religion have freedom of conscience to sin without retribution.

But does it mean that Pope Benedict is contradicting Pope Pius IX???

Mike Huckabee opposes torture

Implicit in the “torture” debate among Catholic intellectuals, and sometimes explicit, is the effort of the Left to find a “non-negotiable” equivalent to abortion with which to discredit Republican votes.

It’s taken for granted that “Republicans support torture”. Now, John McCain, having been tortured himself, is of course anti-torture, though he equivocated a bit on waterboarding. If anything, had I realized the import of this issue a year ago, I might have adjusted my views a bit as per McCain (i.e., a moderately good position on two pro-life issues better than a bad positoin on one and a good position on the other).

But the question arose, in the “I Told You So” department, “What does Mike Huckabee think?”

Well, according to this interview, he is opposed to waterboarding.

Here’s some Republican blogger from December 2007 calling Mike Huckabee “too moralistic”.

Ron Paul is against waterboarding, too.

I can’t find that Sarah Palin has said anything one way or the other.

Pro-choice Libertarian candidate Bob Barr opposed torture.
Chuck Baldwin said that “subordinate military personnel should not be empowered to engage in activities which Congress defines as torture”

The main argument against McCain is that he voted against requiring the CIA to follow the Army Field Manual (which specifically condemns waterboarding), but said he still opposes waterboarding.

So, my hero in the election, Mike Huckabee, opposes torture. Ron Paul, who got the support of many pro-lifers in the primary, also opposes torture. McCain opposes torture, although most of the other Republican nomination candidates support it.

In the general election, each of the candidates supported by pro-lifers–McCain, Barr (why? I have no idea) and Baldwin–opposes torture. Can’t find anything on Palin.

While Abu Ghraib happened before the 2004 election, most of us thought it was an isolated incident. The realities of the Bush Torture Regime didn’t hit until after the 2004 election, and most of us are just now coming to terms with it. So it really shouldn’t effect questions of a vote 4 years ago.

There really is no reason a Catholic should be defending waterboarding politically, just to make a point. No matter who won the past election, there would have been action taken against waterboarding.

So, from the perspective of the Catholic vote ,it’s a non-issue.

OT: "They were the dream . . . "

Today is apparently the 25th Anniversary of the Transformers franchise. Best anyone can figure, May 8, 1984 was the day the first issue of the Transformers comic book from Marvel hit stands, and apparently the first day the toy hit stands.

“mechanical beings, able to transform their bodies into vehicles, machinery, and weapons.”

My first actual Transformer was Hoist. Now, what confuses me about my memory is that Hoist was a 1985 Transformer. I remember when I got Hoist for my birthday, and part of me wants to remember it as my 7th birthday. But it had to be my 8th, because I am pretty sure that I had some idea what Transformers were.

“A last line of defense against the chaos-bringer, Unicron.”

There were a lot of robots that year: Transformers, Gobots, and some Saturday morning series that I don’t even remember the name of.

“They are at war, heroic Autobots pitted against evil Decepticons,”

But there was something different about Transformers. During the 84-85 year, when I was in second grade, it aired on Saturday mornings at like 7 AM. My brothers used to watch it with me, and that’s why they bought the toy.

“both on their homeworld, the metal planned called Cybertron,”

It’s amazing how childhood memories work. . . .

I remember my cousins having Transformers toys, and they always seemed to break easily. Back then, they were a combination of die-cast metal and plastic, which some collectors today insist was superior. It was cool, yes, but they broke like nothing. That’s one reason I was never really interested in the franchise as far as toys until years later.

“and here on our earth.”

My first glimps of the Marvel comic was on the same birthday. The Marvel series was originally supposed to be a 4-issue limited series. It ran one issue every two months for 8 months, and it was so successful it was extended (when the series ended with issue 80 nearly ten years later, the cover said “#80 in a Four Issue Limited Series!”).

“they are the galaxy’s last hope.”

I would start reading the comic book regularly two years later. When I was in fourth grade, I disocvered that the library had comic books available for check out, and I would read comic books from the library.

“They are . . . More than Meets the Eye!”

Of course, the 1986 Movie was groundbreaking in many ways. It traumatized millions of children by kiling off their childhood hero. It introduced a more mystical element to the series that writer Simon Furman would later build on in the comic books, developing the mythology that the Transformers were created by God–known to them as Primus–to battle Unicron, a demon who had incarnated himself in a planet to try and gain divine power by consumption of the universe itself (OK, I’m Christianizing it a bit: Furmans “actual” mythology is Dualistic).

“They are . . . Robots in Disguise!”

A recent book claims that, after Star Wars, it is the most successful science fiction franchise in history.

“Beyond good . . . Beyond evil . . . Beyond your Wildest Imagination”

“Strong enough to break the bravest heart
So we have to pull together–no we can’t stay worlds apart.
To stand divided we will surely fall,
Until our darkest hour, when the Light will save us all!”

“It’s Judgement Day and now we’ve made our stand,
And for now the powers of darkness have been driven from our land.
The battle’s over, but the war has just begun,
That’s the way it will remain, till the day when All are One!”

"L’Osservatore Romano" needs to watch this video

New Bishop of Oakland, CA, speaks out on Right to Life at Installation Mass

Bishop Salvatore J. Cordileone, like most Benedict bishops, has a love for traditional liturgy. In March, he celebrated two Masses at Thomas Aquinas College: one was in the extraordinary form, and one was in the ordinary form, but in Latin, facing ad orientem.

He talked about life issues in the context of his ancestors’ immigratoin compared to modern America’s lack of hospitality, particularly to the unborn.

With an obvious reference to Catholic politicians who claim personal Catholicism but do not reflect their faith in their public life, Bishop Cordileone said: “Nothing and no one may be exempt from his rule. Whether in public or in private, whether professional or personal, no matter how intimate, we must claim him as our Lord.”
He concluded the point stating: “To exclude the rule of Christ from any aspect of our lives, no matter how intimate or personal, at best makes us ourselves the impostors; more often, in some way or another we even become accomplices of the moral and physical violence we claim to abhor.”

"Catholic" Democrat opposes the First Amendment

“Catholic” Democrat U.S. Representative Linda Sanchez has proposed a bill that would ban so-called “cyber-bullying.” According to World Net Daily:

At Wired.com, in a report labeled “Threat Level,” writer David Kravets criticized the plan to demand “up to two years in prison for those whose electronic speech is meant to ‘coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress.'”. . .
The plan is labeled the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, after the 13-year-old Meier, whose suicide last year reportedly was prompted by a woman who utilized the MySpace social networking site to send the teen critical messages. . . .
Wrote a contributor to the Wired forum page, “If passed, this legislation could be easily abused with the effect of criminalizing all criticism. You probably [couldn’t] even criticize the legislation itself because it would cause Sen. Sanchez emotional distress or possibly be considered a form of intimidation.”

OK, even if we look at the direct intent of the law, it’s a violation of subsidiarity. They would make it a federal crime to bully? Sure, there need to be stronger laws against bullying–at the local level. But this open-ended wording clearly suits a higher agenda.

Video Blog: Sarah Palin–the new face of Terror

Not sure how to embed this one, but watch it. It’s hilrious!
h/t to Jill Stanek.

Weakland: Even Worse

From the New York Times:

“If we say our God is an all-loving god,” he said, “how do you explain that at any given time probably 400 million living on the planet at one time would be gay? Are the religions of the world, as does Catholicism, saying to those hundreds of millions of people, you have to pass your whole life without any physical, genital expression of that love?”

Uhh, first, “we say our God is an all-loving god”?? Who says that? Liberals. In the sense that Archbishop Weakland means “all-loving,” the Bible never says that. Scripture says that God so loved the world that He gave us only Son that anyone who believes in Him may have eternal life, and that God proves His love in that, while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

The Bible is very clear about the reality of sin.

The great Archbishop apparently needs some very basic lessons in catechetics and apologetics. Heck, he may as well have asked, “Why would a loving God allow someone to be born with Down’s syndrome?” or “Why would a loving God let someone die of cancer?”

Let me get to the second part after the following:

He said he had been aware of his homosexual orientation since he was a teenager and uppressed it until he became archbishop, when he had relationships with several men because of “loneliness that became very strong.”

He’s a monk, and he’s arguing against celibacy???
He’s claiming it’s wrong to make homosexual men supress their lust, and we know he also thinks it’s wrong to say the same of heterosexual men.

But while it’s one thing to say that married men might be admitted to the secular priesthood, as I was saying the other day about nuns, monks are a totally different matter!! Plus, he’s a bishop, and the Church has *never* permitted married men to be ordained as bishops, so he’s got three strikes against his case.

Ask any Orthodox Christian or Byzantine Catholic if a monk-who-is-a-priest should be allowed to get married in any conceivable reality. Ask any Orthodox Christian or Byzantine Catholic if a bishop should be married.

Weakland made a commitmeent to celibacy as a monk *and* as a priest. He admits he suppressed his inclinations for most of his life, until he was an archbishop.

He waited till absolutely the *worst* time. I mean, one of the reasons ordination is an impediment to marriage is the inherent inequality of the relationship. An archbishop pursuing relations with a young woman, much less a young man, is an inherently unequal and, thus, unethical relationship. Pastor-layperson would be like doctor patient or counselor patient or teacher-student. Bishop-layperson would be like the president of a university having an affair with an undergraduate.

It’s wrong on so many levels.

Archbishop Weakland, 82, said he was probably the first bishop to come out of the closet voluntarily.

Admitting that there are others, and the Lavender Mafia exists.

He said he was doing so not to excuse his actions but to give an honest account of why it happened and to raise questions about the church’s teaching that homosexuality is “objectively disordered.”
“Those are bad words because they are pejorative,” he said.

Anything “pejorative” is bad?

Teacher: “Your math problem is objectively disordered.”
Student: “Those are bad words because they are pejorative.”

Dom DeLuise, devoted to Mary

requiem aeternam dona eum, Domine, et lux perpetua luceat eum.

Bishop of Toledo OH bans heretical Homosexual "ministry"

Bishop Leonard Blair, a member of the Apostolic Visitation of the Leadership Council of Women Religious, has forbidden a Franciscan convent in Tiffin, OH, from hosting a conference by New Ways Ministry.

This is the organization

Francis DeBernardo, Executive Director of New Ways Ministry, claims that, “the work we do’s in line with the best of the Catholic tradition” (but apparently not the best of English grammar).

Despite being disciplined again by the Church, DeBernardo has promised that his pro-homosexual workshop will take place in Toledo, saying “We might not be able to use a Catholic facility, but we’ll reach Catholic people.”

Let’s see what they say on their own website.

“Celebrating 31 Years of Ministry in the LGBT Catholic Community!”

They oppose a Maryland Marriage Protection Act.
They have a directoy of “Gay Friendly Catholic Parishes.” Sadly, Our Lady, Queen of Peace in Arlington is listed, as is the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Atlanta. Lots in California. None in South Carolina.

They also have a directory of Catholic colleges that offer “lesbian and gay studies” [some highlights]:

Omaha, Nebraska: Creighton University!!!
Denver, Colorado: Regis University (I trained to teach online there and
never heard back; probably because they assigned an essay on “tolerance” as part
of the training, to which I wrote a Catholic response)
Washington, DC: Georgetown (duh)
Miami Gardens, Florida : Saint Thomas University
Indiana: Notre Dame University (duh), Holy Cross College and Saint Mary’s
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts: Boston College (duh)
Missouri: Saint Louis University (almost went there)
Erie, Pennsylvania: Mercyhurst College
Seattle, Washington: Seattle University
Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Marquette University

Many of these are not surprising, and should be added to the reasons these universities are stripped of their Catholic status. But it’s sad that Creighton and Marquette, both of which have contributed to Natural Family Planning, should otherwise be so corrupt. [NOTE: The principle point here is that *this is what New Ways Ministry is saying.* Whether New Ways Ministry is accurately depicting the situation at these colleges is another matter, but from what I know of several of the schools on this list, it’s true. Most of these are colleges that have long traditions of liberalism and heresy. Given the climate of most colleges, I think the burden of proof is on the college to show it does not teach LGBT “tolerance.”]

Other than this, it’s hard to find info. They have links for Archives on Press Releases, In the News and the Gramick/Nugent Case, but all come up blank.

Trying to cover their tracks?

“What is the Gramick/Nugent Case”, you ask?

Well, way back in 1999, the founders of New Ways Ministry, Fr. Bob Nugent and Sr. Jeannine Gramick, were censured by then Josef Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for heresy!

Here’s a copy of the Notification on the website of New Ways’ sister group Dignity USA.

Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Father Robert Nugent, SDS, have been engaged in pastoral activities directed toward homosexual persons for more than 20 years. In 1977 they founded the organization New Ways Ministry within the territory of the Archdiocese of Washington in order to promote “justice and reconciliation between lesbian and gay Catholics and the wider Catholic community.”1 They are the authors of the book Building Bridges: Gay and Lesbian Reality and the Catholic Church (Mystic, Conn.,: Twenty-Third Publications, 1992) and editors of the volume Voices of Hope: A Collection of Positive Catholic Writings on Gay and Lesbian Issues (New York: Center for Homophobia Education, 1995).

In 1984, the Congregation for Religious ordered them to stop association with New Ways Ministry.

Despite this action by the Holy See, Father Nugent and Sister Gramick continued their involvement in activities organized by New Ways Ministry, though removing themselves from leadership positions. They also continued to maintain and promote ambiguous positions on homosexuality and explicitly criticized documents of the church’s magisterium on this issue. Because of their statements and activities, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and for Societies of Apostolic Life received numerous complaints and urgent requests for clarification from bishops and others in the United States of America. It was clear that the activities of Sister Gramick and Father Nugent were causing difficulties in not a few dioceses and that they were continuing to present the teaching of the church as one possible option among others and as open to fundamental change. In 1988 the Holy See established a commission under the presidency of Cardinal Adam Maida to study and evaluate their public statements and activities, and to determine whether these were faithful to Catholic teaching on

In 1994, the Commission reached its decision and recommended disciplinary action. In 1995, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and for Societies of Apostolic Life transferred the case to the CDF. The CDF gave them another chance to recant, and, in 1996, they wrote responses which, while demonstrating knowledge of the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. They also, at the same time, published a new book on the subject, which showed no change in their positions.

Given the fact that certain of the statements of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick were clearly incompatible with the teaching of the church and that the wide dissemination of these errors through their publications and pastoral activities was becoming an increasing source of concern for bishops in the United States of America, the congregation decided that the case should be resolved according to the procedure outlined in its “Regulations for Doctrinal Examination” (Chapter 4).2

In the ordinary session of Oct. 8, 1997, the cardinals and bishops who make up the congregation judged that the statements of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick, which had been identified through the above-mentioned procedure of the “Regulations for Doctrinal Examination,” were in fact erroneous and dangerous. After the Holy Father had approved the formal contestatio of the authors, the above-mentioned erroneous statements were presented to them through their respective superiors general. Each was asked to espond to the contestatio personally and independently from the other, to allow them the greatest freedom in expressing their individual positions.

Yet another opportunity was given in 1998, when they were ordered to give public declarations of

their interior assent to the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality and to acknowledge that the two above-mentioned books contained errors.
The two declarations which arrived in August 1998 were examined by the congregation in the ordinary session of Oct. 21, 1998. Once again, they were not sufficient to resolve the problems associated with their writings and pastoral activities. Sister Gramick, while expressing her love for the church, simply refused to express any assent whatsoever to the teaching of the church on homosexuality. Father Nugent was more responsive, but not unequivocal in his statement of interior assent to the teaching of the church. . . .

Given the failure of the repeated attempts of the church’s legitimate authorities to resolve the problems presented by the writings and pastoral activities of the two authors, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is obliged to declare for the good of the Catholic faithful that the positions advanced by Sister Jeannine Gramick and Father Robert Nugent regarding the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts and the objective disorder of the homosexual inclination are doctrinally unacceptable because they do not faithfully convey the clear and constant teaching of the Catholic Church in this area.3
Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have often stated that they seek, in keeping with the church’s teaching, to treat homosexual persons “with respect, compassion and sensitivity.”4 However, the promotion of errors and ambiguities is not consistent with a Christian attitude of true respect and compassion: Persons who are struggling with homosexuality, no less than any others, have the right to receive the authentic teaching of the church from those who minister to them.
The ambiguities and errors of the approach of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have caused confusion among the Catholic people and have harmed the community of the church. For these reasons, Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Father Robert Nugent, SDS, are permanently prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons and are ineligible, for an undetermined period, for any office in their respective religious institutes.

So, how, exactly, has New Ways Ministry been “misunderstood”?

Here’s Sr. Gramick’s response.
Fr. Nugent’s Responses

A Message from Fr. John Corapi, SOLT, on Notre Dame

Carmelite Vocation Ad

This is Catholic spirituality:

Discalced Carmelite Nuns
73530 River Rd.
Covington, LA 70435