Daily Archives: May 28, 2009

Cutie did not "break" his vow of celibacy

Just as a point of grammar: celibacy is the state of being non-married. Celibacy is *not* the state of being sexually inactive, per se. In Catholic terminology, that is called “continence,” but chastity will do.

Catholics are called to be chaste. Priests are celibate, and celibate chastity means continence. Had he attempted marriage with this woman, Fr. Albero Cutie would have “broken” his vow of celibacy. As it is, he *violated* the vow, but he did not “break” it.

Of course, as Scott Hahn says, the use of the term “break” in reference to a vow is always problematic.

Also, I keep hearing this fellow referred to as “Father Oprah”: if his approach to Catholicism gets him compared to New Age Feel Good Guru Oprah Winfrey, is it any s surprise he’s done this, or that he’s decided he’s better suited to the Episcopal priesthood?

[Robert Stack voice] UPDATE:
Should note, of course, that by apostasizing, he’s broken all sorts of vows, and has put himself on the fast track to perdition.

Sotomayor is not a "practicing" Catholic

Like Clarence Thomas when he was appointed to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor is not a “practicing” Catholic.

“Judge Sotomayor was raised as a Catholic and attends church for family celebrations and other important events,” the White House said.

When Thomas was being nominated, they made a big deal of his Catholic upbringing and his stated support for Natural Law. This is something, by the way, that distinguishes Thomas from Scalia: Thomas supports Natural Law theory, while “cafeteria Catholic” Antonin Scalia is a legal positivist and adheres to the “Kennedy heresy” (condemned by, among other documents, the “Syllabus of Errors” and _Evangelium Vitae_) that faith doesn’t apply to one’s job.

Anyway, Thomas came back to active practice of his faith after joining the Supreme Court and being positively influenced by Scalia.

Maybe that’s a good sign for Sotomayor?

In related news, Obama has apparently changed his rhetoric, dropping the term “empathy” that he has previously used, theoretically and practically, regarding appointments, since Republicans have framed “empathy” as “code word for activist judge.” From the NYT:

Instead, said a senior administration official involved in planning the confirmation strategy, look for the kind of talk that turned up in Mr. Obama’s remarks the East Room the other day — phrases like a commitment to “approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda” and to “faithfully apply the facts at hand.” Mr. Obama’s new “necessary ingredient,” he said, is ‘’an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.”

[Robert Stack voice] UPDATE: “Granny Grump” at RealChoice has dug up some very interesting statements from Sotomayor’s ruling on the Chinese refugees about how paintful forced abortion is for families because it is the “loss of a child”.

Susan Boyle "cracking under pressure"

Apparently, Susan Boyle has engaged in a couple public outbursts spurred by rude comments from reporters. Piers Morgan says she cried for two days and considered dropping out of Britain’s Got Talent.

Seem to remember her pastor worrying about something like that.

Sotomayor has *three* pro-life rulings.

In addition to the reports about Sonia Sotomayor ruling in favor of Mexico City Policy, she has also ruled in favor of pro-life protestors violating a state law banning clinic protests, and she has ruled in favor (in a minority decision) of Chinese families who wanted refugee status to avoid forced abortion.

Says Bonnie Erbe of US News:

Either President Obama has picked a well-disguised pro-life nominee to the court, about which conservatives should be gleeful. Or he has chosen a nominee whose pro-choice views are so cloaked in noncommittal rulings that she is the stealth of all stealth pro-choice court nominees.

Interesting take on "Jon and Kate"

Marybeth Hicks at Townhall has an interesting piece on “reality TV” stars Jon and Kate Gosselin. What’s particularly interesting is this point:

Jon and Kate have learned the self-deceptive vocabulary that allows them to dissociate their marriage from their role as parents.

I did a quick check and confirmed that Hicks is Catholic, because I don’t think I’ve ever seen it phrased this way, but it really encapsulates the *consequence* of violating the Church’s teachings on sexuality.

If the marital act is both unitive and procreative, it makes sense that part of the consequence of severing those purposes is the severing of the link between marriage and parenting.

“Jon and Kate” raise the same dilemma as “Octomom”, and, a lesser extent, the Duggars.

It’s nice to see someone witnessing to large families and being “open to life,” yet it is also bizarre to have an openness to life come from in vitro fertilization (not meaning the Duggars, but the Gosselins and that other woman).

IVF is the opposite sin from contraception, taking the procreative purpose and leaving the unitive behind. It also, in the cases of these “fifteen minutes of fame” families, involves demanding it “right now.”

It’s really rather infuriating to hear people like Celine Dion or half the couples on A Baby Story refer to their IVF babies as “miracles.”

That’s not a “miracle.” That’s forcing God’s Hand! It’s the exact opposite of a miracle. My wife noticed in our parish’s prayer intention book that, sometime last year, someone wrote “For my daughter to successfully conceive a baby through IVF.”

Whatever the “extracurricular” activities of the Gosselins, they demonstrate a fundamental flaw in their reasoning from their use of IVF to begin with, and then turning their family life into “reality TV”. They’re creating these disjoints.

If you’ve got cameras on your household 24/7, it’s not surprising you’d appreciate a chance to slip out and escape, that you’d come to see your life as a fiction and hope for some reality. It’s probably the reason so many Hollywood celebrities’ marriages fail.

On Monday night’s show, in separate couch chats, Jon and Kate took pains to express their commitment to their children’s happiness regardless of their future together. The kids come first, or so they said. Unfortunately, this couple thinks happiness is about birthday parties with piñatas and a magician.