Monthly Archives: March 2015

The Catholic faith has nothing whatsoever to do with feminism and Our Lady was no women’s libber. The Pontifical Council for Culture’s new outreach to women is awkward to say that least.   What they produce is telling since it’s decidedly un-manly, appealing neither to men nor women.

The Vatican has removed the controversial Venus Restored (1936) by Surrealist artist Man Ray from the website of its Pontifical Council for Culture. The image, a plaster cast of a nude torso – with no head or face, no arms and no legs – tightly bound with rope, was intended to draw attention to its annual plenary assembly on Women’s Culture: Equality and Difference. It succeeded more than expected.

The assembly took place last month, between February 4th and 7th.

The image provoked international outrage from Catholic women’s groups in particular, who saw it as reflecting what Bishop Bridget Mary Meehan of the Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests says is “the Vatican’s patriarchal, dysfunctional view that holds women in spiritual bondage”.

This response is the true essence of our Church in the age of FrancisMercy.  Moving ‘Forward’ as Pope Francis famously counseled on the anniversary of the Paul VI Vernacular Mass, is simply capitulation and submission.  In the end it brings neither respect nor mercy from the enemies of the Faith.

At Catholic World Report Carl Olsen takes the Catholic publications to task who recently scolded the country and the courts on the death penalty, all in the name of the Church.

Three things stand out to me on reading the editorial. First, the use of “must end,” rather than “should end.” There is an obvious sense of moral absoluteness in the headline, and it is carried further in the text, which says of capital punishment: “The practice is abhorrent and unnecessary.” Those adjectives are dubious, to put it mildly. The use of “abhorrent” is especially strange considering the word conjures up a clear sense of objective evil, even though capital punishment, when administered lawfully, prudentially, and proportionally, is nothing of the sort.

Secondly, the arguments presented are essentially utilitarian or emotional in nature, and no mention is made of the reasons, based in the Church’s social teaching, that have traditionally (and consistently) been given in support of capital punishment. Dr. Steven Long, professor of theology at Ave Maria University, brings attention to this fact in a post at Thomistica.net:

Are the editors of the journals involved–or the bishops who so commonly describe the death penalty as contrary to human dignity as though it were a malum in se–familiar with the work of the late Eminence Cardinal Avery Dulles on this question?  Or the teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church?  Hundreds of years of Catholic teaching in conformity with the teaching of the Fathers and Doctors has acknowledged that implementing the penalty is a prudential matter and that the penalty is essentially valid.  Pope Piux XII taught that the penalty is valid across cultures.  The wisdom of applying this penalty is essentially a prudential matter.  But as prudential there is no such thing as “de facto abolition” since circumstances change, and–again, contrary to the journals and the new enthusiasm–deterrence is a necessary and essential part of criminal justice.

After walking through other published reactions to the joint appeal, Olsen reiterates his frustration with such un-Catholic moral posturing.

Finally, I want to point out that my 2012 article was not an argument for or against the death penalty, but rather a work outlining what the Church has taught and does teach about the topic. And yet I was criticized, in the comments, for being both too pro-capital punishment and too anti-capital punishment. Perhaps the problem is that for the majority of people this is an all-or-nothing topic, yet the Church’s tradition and teaching are not easily or rightly shoved into either extreme.

(And, to state what should be obvious, but might not be: the matter of the death penalty is distinctly different from the matters of abortion, assisted suicide, and other grave evils that are, by their very nature, immoral. The death penalty can be misused and abused, and there are substantial arguments that can and have been made for using it rarely or not at all, but it is not, in itself, immoral.)

I am, in fact, sympathetic to the call to abolish the death penalty, but I think there are good, cogent, and objective reasons to allow for it in certain situations and in certain places, in accordance with what the tradition and Catechism state. What I find bothersome, again, is the note of moral superiority taken by some who insist the death penalty must be abolished, a note that is decidedly strident and off-putting compared to the careful, rich, and even-handed teachings found in Catholic social doctrine.

Clergy and professional ‘c’atholics abusing the divine credibility of the Church to build up the state and it’s faithless agenda are marks of our time.  For many years now we have expected this kind of thing from the once-condemned America Magazine and the National Catholic Reporter.  What’s new is their partnering with formerly reliable sources like EWTN and the National Catholic Register.  Who do you think blinked?

What are the faithful to believe when the unprecedented abdication of a good pope and the appearance of his replacement lead to honors and support for dissident media? Must we all close our eyes and change our Faith into something worse now?

In a stunning move, a priest from the Denver Archdiocese has critiqued the atrocious questionnaire being distributed worldwide by the Vatican in advance of the next Synod on the Family.  This tool was supposedly circulated to gather some family-related data from what may remain of the Catholic Church, but it has all the characteristics of a frivolous pretense.

Rorate Caeli has published the points in Fr. James Jackson’s review.  Some examples:

The language of sin and redemption was missing from the documents.

Instead, we were treated to sentences like “The challenge for the Church is to assist couples in their emotive maturation and affective development.” This is an example of substituting sociology and psychology for the Word of God and the teaching of the Church, examples of which may be found throughout the document.

Many of the statements were too vague to understand.

For example, “…a reflection capable of reframing the great questions about the meaning of human existence, can be responsive to humanity’s most profound expectations.” I do not know what this means. And there seems to be little in the document about our obligation to be responsive to the expectations of the Lord.

Throughout the document there is a sentimental notion of mercy which can be quite misleading.

For example, “Jesus looked upon the women and men he met with love and tenderness…in proclaiming the demands of the Kingdom of God.” Except when He didn’t. The words He used to condemn the Pharisees were not words of tenderness.

It seems that the writers of these documents went to great lengths to avoid talking about sin.

For example, “…the Church turns with love to those who participate in her life in an incomplete manner…” If there is no sin, then there is no need of salvation. Which is why I suppose, that the sentence continues with “…recognizing that the grace of God works also in their lives by giving them the courage to do good, to care for one another and to be of service to the community in which they live and work.” There is no salvation in the “courage to do good etc.,” as the pagans do as much.

Beginning with #33, a list of solutions is proposed.

“Proclamation…in espousing values,” “…a more positive approach to the richness of various religious experiences,” and denunciations of poverty stemming from “market logic.”

      I have no idea what these mean.