Filipino Bishops Show Admirable Leadership

How many of our so-called "Catholic" universities actively undermining the faith? And how many times have you heard the USCCB call them out on it, let alone remind the schools that a crozier is a big stick for a reason?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

From GMA News, with my emphases and comments:

CBCP warns Catholic schools against pro-RH teaching 

August 19, 2012 1:16pm

Catholic schools that do not toe the line on the reproductive health (RH) bill may be stripped of their affiliation with the Church, the head of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines warned over the weekend.

CBCP president and Cebu archbishop Jose Palma said such a sanction awaits Catholic schools and institutions that violate the Church's ethical and religious directives.

 “If we are a Catholic school, we should not teach anything contrary to the official teaching of the church,” Palma said in an article posted Saturday night on the CBCP news site. [What is the world coming to when a Catholic Archbishop in the Philippines has to make such a statement?"

His warning came after some 160 professors of the Ateneo De Manila University (ADMU) expressed their support for the passage of the RH bill. [And I bet they think they're so brave and modern and smart for fighting the power so people in the Philippines can embrace the culture of death. I'd be curious as to how many of these professors can tell me what Scripture says about the wisdom of the world.]

The Catholic Church is vocal against the RH bill for its provisions allowing artificial contraception. The Church advocates natural family planning.

"We have no comment," deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said on government-run dzRB radio Sunday regarding the matter.

President Benigno Aquino III had risked crossing paths with the Catholic Church after his policy on responsible parenthood allows the use of artificial contraceptives. ['Responsible parenthood'? I'm tempted to quote Inigo Montoya on this one, but I'll let the temptation pass. How long, O Lord, until people realize that responsible parenthood starts with responsible sex, and that responsible sex isn't about artificial hormones or latex or injections or sterilizations?]

The CBCP quoted Palma as saying there is a clash of beliefs between the Church and some teachers in some Catholic schools. [The easy solution is to invite these false prophets to take up another line of work, one that does not involve poisoning impressionable young minds.]

[Read the rest at GMA News]

I fear the good bishops in the Philippines are going to lose the fight, but I'm so very grateful for their leadership and willingness to remind Catholic schools that their most important quality is their fidelity to the Catholic faith.

St. Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Congratulations, Archbishop Dolan!

New York Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan was elected president of the USCCB today.

New contender for bishop of the year award

Archbishop of Milwaukee, Jerome E. Listecki recently used his pastoral authority to let folks know in a news release that the organization Young Catholics for Choice may be young and ok with abortion, but they sure aren't Catholic.

Full text of the bishop's statement (with my emphases and comments):

"It has come to my attention that an organization calling itself “Young Catholics for Choice” has recently entered into collaboration with Family Planning HealthServices of Wausau. Through media advertising, “Young Catholics for Choice” is attempting to convey the message that Catholics can disregard Church teaching regarding contraception, abortion and human sexuality in general and remain Catholics in good standing. [Should we file this under 'catechesis FAIL' or 'secular outlook WIN'?]
Nothing could be further from the truth. [Now that's a bishop who knows how to bish!] While people can call themselves whatever they want, it is my duty as a bishop to state clearly and unequivocally that by professing and disseminating views in grave contradiction to Catholic teaching, members of organizations like “Young Catholics for Choice” in fact disown their Catholic heritage, tragically distancing themselves from that communion with the Church to which they are called. We pray that they may reconcile their position which is contrary to the Catholic Faith they claim to profess." ["Nothing could be further from the truth," "grave contradiction" "disown their Catholic heritage" " tragically distancing themselves, " "contrary to the Catholic Faith" - no mincing words here!]

Bravo to Bishop Listecki! May these misguided people come to know the truth that sets them free.

On a somewhat related note, as much as these "Catholic" groups annoy me to no end, they do kind of point out that the Catholic Church is the Church. I mean, it would be so very easy for these "Catholics" to simply become Episcopalian and have all these beliefs affirmed. Heck, they'd even get some liturgy, and women's ordination.

But that's not enough for them. I think, deep down, buried under several layers of "what-do-a-bunch-of-old-men-in-Rome-know-about-life?" scorn, they know that the Catholic Church is what she claims to be. And that scares them into staying. They continue to dissent, continue to try to change her, but they know that they cannot leave Jesus's Church.

So while they've leaped off the back of the Barque of Peter, they've still got a rope tied to the ship. They think they're doing the Church a favor by trying to tug her towards "modernity."

However, hopefully sooner rather than later, they'll realize that, while that ship has its barnacles, it has weathered the Albigensians and the Arians, the Manicheans and the Modernists, the Nestorians, Napoleon and the Nazis, the profilgate popes and the Protestants.

"Young Catholics for Choice" won't be able to budge her. With the pope at the helm, the Church will sail on, with the between the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Holy Eucharist as the guides, no matter what.

Gloria in excelsis Deo!

Bishop Tobin wasn't kidding, Kennedy

I wonder if Kennedy has yet regretted opening Pandora's box...

RI bishop asked Kennedy in 2007 to avoid Communion

By RAY HENRY, Associated Press Writer Ray Henry, Associated Press Writer – Sun Nov 22, 6:05 pm ET

EAST PROVIDENCE, R.I. – A month of harsh words between Rep. Patrick Kennedy and a strident critic, Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin, escalated Sunday when the bishop acknowledged asking Kennedy not to receive Holy Communion because of the Democratic lawmaker's support for abortion rights.

The bishop's attempt to publicly shame Kennedy on his abortion stance comes just a few months after the death of his father, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. Tobin told The Associated Press that the younger Kennedy, who has been in and out of treatment for substance abuse, has been acting "erratically." [Deciding to take on the U.S. bishops is kind of erratic. However, did Tobin tell the AP about substance abuse? I doubt it. Which makes that indirect quote kind of weird.]

Their dispute began in October when Kennedy criticized the nation's Catholic bishops for threatening to oppose an overhaul of the nation's health care system unless lawmakers included tighter restrictions on abortion, which have since been added to the House version of the bill. Tobin said he felt [I don't think he said 'felt'] Kennedy made an unprovoked attack on the church and demanded an apology.

"The point is, because of his obstinate ... public support of abortion, which is clearly contrary to an essential teaching of the church of a matter of critical morality ... he is then not properly prepared to receive Holy Communion," Tobin said in an interview Sunday. "No one has a right to receive Holy Communion." [Amen.]

The feud escalated after Kennedy told The Providence Journal in a story published Sunday that Tobin instructed him not to receive Communion. Kennedy also claimed the bishop had told diocesan priests not to give him communion, an allegation that Tobin denied. [Remember this: Tobin tried to correct Kennedy privately first, like any good shepherd. Kennedy took it public. Therefore, what right does Kennedy have to complain about public statements that Tobin makes?]

....

Tobin said he wrote Kennedy in February 2007 and asked him not to receive Communion because of his voting record supporting abortion rights.[Sooo, it's not like Kennedy has been unaware of the Church's beliefs.]

The bishop said his letter was prompted by a statement two months earlier from the nation's Catholic bishops. They said that believers who knowingly and consistently break with church teachings on moral issues such as abortion should refrain from Communion, the focus of Roman Catholic worship.

Abortion is a major concern for the Catholic bishops because opposition to the procedure is based on the church's earliest teachings on preserving human life, which have not changed. By comparison, church teaching on the death penalty is not as definitive and has changed over time, making it difficult for church leaders to demand that Catholic lawmakers agree.[Where did the AP come up with this!? The Catechism states:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."]

Only a few U.S. bishops have said they would outright deny Holy Communion to a Catholic lawmaker who supports policies that violate church teaching. A larger number of prelates have publicly asked a Catholic politician to voluntarily abstain from the sacrament.

For example, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Diocese of Kansas City in Kansas had repeatedly said publicly that former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic Democrat who supports abortion rights, should stop taking Communion until she changes her stance. Sebelius is now President Barack Obama's secretary of Health and Human Services.

.....

Kudos to Tobin. Decent article by the AP, although the contrast between abortion and the death penalty was just plain weird. Where did they come up with the distinction?

Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

Today might just be a watershed moment: 148 Catholics, Evangelicals and Orthodox signed a joint statement calling for protection of life, marriage and religious freedom.

The Catholic signatories included Archbishops Charles Chaput of Denver and Timothy "I'm not holding my breath" Dolan of New York City and Donald W. Wuerl of Washington, D.C., among others.

You can (and should!) read the whole declaration at First Things. But I think the most important section of the document is the last three paragraphs (with my emphases):

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral. The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust—and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust—undermine the common good, rather than serve it.

Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel. In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required. There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself. Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience. King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Did you get that? We have 148 Christian leaders who will not give in to government and cultural pressures to turn a blind eye to the evils of abortion, celebrate the undermining of marriage or accept restrictions on religious freedom.

They have made the statement that they are willing to exercise civil disobedience rather than obey unjust laws.

How many of them will end up living out these words?

My bet is definitely more than a few.

Thank God for the gift of these leaders.

Wherein the Boston Globe shows its illiteracy

Scripture and Catholic illiteracy, that is. Find the Boston Globe article here.

With my [comments] and emphases.

Verbally, bishop isn't turning cheek
[Aside from the fact that the Scripture is totally taken out of context - Matthew 5:39 has nothing to do with a bishop correcting an errant member - note how this headline sets the tone that the bishop isn't acting like Jesus. Jesus, in the Gospel according to Globe, wouldn't correct Kennedy.]
R.I.'s Tobin welcomes tussles with politicians [Because opposition to abortion is political, not moral, not religious. Note how this is also a popular angle for coverage.]


by Noah Bierman
Globe Staff/November 12, 2009

PROVIDENCE - The bishop from America’s most Catholic state, and increasingly one of the church’s most provocative prelates, has provided a rather concise explanation for his willingness to clash with politicians: Christians are not supposed to be nice, at least not all the time.

“In confronting moral evil, Jesus wasn’t nice, kind, gentle, and sweet,’’ Thomas J. Tobin, the bishop of Providence, wrote in his diocesan newspaper column earlier this year. “He lived in a rough and tumble world and He took His message to the streets.’’

Tobin has followed his interpretation [um...has this journalist ever read the story of the temple moneychangers? Has he read what Jesus called the Pharisees?] of Jesus’ demeanor most devoutly, and he is quickly positioning himself at the national forefront of a renewed debate over the role of Catholic orthodoxy in the public square, most recently in a very personal feud [Again, this wording tries to marginalize what's going on. If Kennedy is acting in the public square, his views may be personal, but they are not private.] with Representative Patrick Kennedy. As the abortion issue has taken on prominence in the national health care debate, Tobin has insisted Catholics get involved in the rough world of politics [because it's only political, not moral, not religious]- even if it means tangling with prochoice Catholic [a contradiction in terms] legislators. And he has led by example.

Since his installation in 2005, he has challenged the Republican governor’s crackdown on illegal immigration, inserted himself into last year’s Republican presidential primary with a rebuke of Rudolph Giuliani on the abortion issue (in which he addressed him familiarly as “Rudy’’ in a commentary), and took on President Obama in a mock interview published in another of his columns (in which he facetiously quotes Obama advancing the rights of foreigners “to kill their children and use abortion as a form of birth control.’’) [If the shoe fits...]

His commentary, published regularly in the Rhode Island Catholic, is titled, not surprisingly, “Without a Doubt.’’ [Can we at least pretend to be objective?]

“He speaks his mind. He has his convictions,’’ said Beverley Smith, a 59-year-old nurse who attended lunchtime Mass at the gold-accented [relevant because..?] downtown cathedral in Providence yesterday.

Tobin and Kennedy, a member of one of America’s most prominent Catholic families, have been exchanging fiery words for weeks. But the rhetoric may have reached a climax in Tobin’s most recent column, in which he disputes Kennedy’s contention that disagreeing with church hierarchy makes him no less of a Catholic. [It's not just Tobin's opinion, though. It's what the Church teaches.]

“Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does,’’ Tobin wrote. “Your position is unacceptable to the church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the church.’’

A planned meeting between the men, scheduled for today, has been postponed indefinitely. According to the diocese, it was by mutual agreement. In a news conference Tuesday, Kennedy said he was willing to meet with Tobin but not willing to discuss his faith in public anymore. [In other words, Kennedy knows that this is a fight he cannot win, but he refuses to admit his errors.]

“I had initially agreed on a meeting with him, provided that we not debate this in public, in terms of my personal faith or things of that sort,’’ Kennedy said, according to the Associated Press. “And, unfortunately, he hasn’t kept to that agreement. And that’s been very disconcerting to me.’’ [Mr. Kennedy, millions of Catholics find it disconcerting that you are willing to ignore the Church's constant and ancient teaching about abortion, and willfully disregard the rebuke of your bishop.]

Earlier, Kennedy had questioned why church leaders would oppose the opportunity to insure millions of poor Americans because the bill could possibly provide [read: would] coverage for abortions. [Never mind that the Catholic Church leads the world in charitable giving.]

“You mean to tell me the Catholic Church is going to be denying those people life-saving health care?’’ Kennedy told the Catholic News Service last month. [Red herring. Note also that the reporter also fails to report any facts about what health care the Catholic Church provides or the fact that Catholic bishops have long advocated for reform of the health care system.] A health care bill was passed by the US House of Representatives over the weekend, with a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion - considered a major victory for the nation’s Catholic bishops and other abortion opponents. Kennedy voted against the amendment [Thereby demonstrating that he is not acting as a Catholic should.] but supported the final bill.

Kennedy, through a spokesman, declined an interview request for this article. Tobin’s spokesman could not make him available, but the bishop said in a radio interview yesterday that it was Kennedy who started the fight [I wonder if those were Tobin's words. I somehow doubt it.] by making an unfortunate and ill-advised attack on church leadership.

But Tobin, a 61-year-old from Pittsburgh, has entered the debate with apparent relish.[Because it's all political and he's just enjoying his moment in the spotlight.] His office has been quick to send out responses and commentary as the debate has continued. His folksy yet pointed writing was singled out for praise by the Catholic Press Association in 2000, for columns he wrote for his former diocese in Youngstown, Ohio.

“I admit it; I’m a political junkie,’’ Tobin wrote in a column this month. “I follow political news pretty closely and if I weren’t a cleric, I’d probably run for something or other. In His wisdom, though, and perhaps to protect the public, the Lord has led me down a different path.’’ [Say it with me now: it's all political.]

Even in Rhode Island, where church estimates put the Catholic population at 58 percent of the state, bishops have not always entered the public sphere so readily. [The implication being that they need to stay in their churches.] The church was chastened by its effort in 1986 to pass a nonbinding referendum that called for severe restrictions on abortion. Much to everyone’s surprise, it failed miserably, said Maureen Moakley, a University of Rhode Island political scientist.

“After that defeat, the church kind of stepped back, and the next bishop was this live-and-let-live’’ leader [perhaps this was part of the problem - past bishops failing to govern their flocks] when it came to the political [always 'political'] establishment, Moakley said. “But the arrival of Tobin has been a very different attitude, a willingness to be confrontational about issues.’’

Moakley said the political impact remains a question that will not be settled until Kennedy and other members of the delegation face reelection. Tobin also has something at stake: a test of the church’s clout in a modern world [as opposed to the medieval world where faithful Catholics live?] where many in the flock disagree about abortion, gay marriage, and other social issues in which the leadership has taken an uncompromising stance.[Is it really so hard for journalists to understand that a.)the 'leadership' is not making it up as they go along and b.)the leadership doesn't have the authority to suddenly say that abortion and same-sex marriage are ok? Really? Is it so hard to comprehend that not everything can be negotiated away, that sometimes things are simply right or wrong?]

On the streets of Providence yesterday, opinions seemed divided on the Tobin/Kennedy issue, though some self-identified Catholics said they had little knowledge of Tobin or his commentaries. [IOW, Tobin is irrelevant.]

“He was ordained to uphold the Catholic doctrine. That’s what he’s doing,’’ said Fran Whitworth, the 42-year-old owner of Old World Cigar on Federal Hill.

But Janelle Ploude, who said she attends Mass weekly and keeps a large portrait of Jesus near her station at a downtown beauty parlor [wherein the reporter establishes her credentials], said Tobin has taken things too far.

“I feel like church and state should be two totally different things,’’ said Ploude, 31. [Aarrrgh. How many times must we point out that abortion isn't a political issue alone - it's a moral issue as well, and the Church has an obligation to weigh in on moral issues.]

Still others managed to find a middle ground [always a happy buzz word in a relativistic world] in a debate many find irreconcilable. [And for good reason: Tobin can't declare abortion morally permissable, and Kennedy probably won't admit his errors.]

“I can see both sides,’’ said Jim Aceto, a 59-year-old accountant from North Providence.

The bishop, who needs to set a tone for all Catholics, had no choice but to address the actions of a congressman who holds himself out as a Catholic, Aceto said. But the congressman, Aceto noted, needs to represent more than one group of people in his public role. [Not an excuse. In the early years, Catholics died rather than offer a speck of incense to a Roman god or be complicit in moral evils. Kennedy, like any good politician, should be willing to risk his seat in Congress to do what is right. It's a much lesser martyrdom than being torn apart by wild animals.]

“Abortion’s always a topic of discussion,’’ [except that Rome locuta est - Causa finita est. No room for nuances. Abortion is intrinsically evil.] said Aceto, who does not support Kennedy. “I know some very good Catholics that feel the way Kennedy does.’’ [By definition, however, they are no longer "very good Catholics" if they support abortion.]

It's also worth pointing out how this article is structured in its final paragraphs. By ending on that quote, the reporter is making sure that the reader's last thought is that one can be a "very good Catholic" while agreeing with Kennedy - which is untrue. The article would have a whole different feel if the reporter pointed that out, or ended on Fran Whitworth's quote.

It's a shame the reporter didn't bother to a.) check the relevant Scriptures and b.) learn a thing or two about the Catholic Church before writing this article.

It's also a shame that bishops acting with conviction are so newsworthy. In this Year of the Priest, pray for them, that they might have the courage to be vastly unpopular for the sake of Jesus and His Church.

Bishop Tobin takes off the gloves

Bishop Tobin - my favorite bishop of the week - is not letting Rep. Patrick Kennedy get away with his antics. (Click here for the backstory, and here for continuing coverage.)

Tobin took the opportunity to school the congressman - and his flock - in a piece in The Rhode Island Catholic.

WITHOUT A DOUBT
Dear Congressman Kennedy
by BISHOP THOMAS J. TOBIN

Dear Congressman Kennedy:

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” (Congressman Patrick Kennedy)
Since our recent correspondence has been rather public, I hope you don’t mind if I share a few reflections about your practice of the faith in this public forum. I usually wouldn’t do that – that is speak about someone’s faith in a public setting – but in our well-documented exchange of letters about health care and abortion, it has emerged as an issue. I also share these words publicly with the thought that they might be instructive to other Catholics, including those in prominent positions of leadership.

For the moment I’d like to set aside the discussion of health care reform, as important and relevant as it is, and focus on one statement contained in your letter of October 29, 2009, in which you write, “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” That sentence certainly caught my attention and deserves a public response, lest it go unchallenged and lead others to believe it’s true. And it raises an important question: What does it mean to be a Catholic?

“The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic.” Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does. Although I wouldn’t choose those particular words, when someone rejects the teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.

For example, the “Code of Canon Law” says, “Lay persons are bound by an obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with that doctrine.” (Canon 229, #1)

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says this: “Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles, ‘He who hears you, hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.” (#87)

Or consider this statement of the Church: “It would be a mistake to confuse the proper autonomy exercised by Catholics in political life with the claim of a principle that prescinds from the moral and social teaching of the Church.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2002)

There’s lots of canonical and theological verbiage there, Congressman, but what it means is that if you don’t accept the teachings of the Church your communion with the Church is flawed, or in your own words, makes you “less of a Catholic.”

But let’s get down to a more practical question; let’s approach it this way: What does it mean, really, to be a Catholic? After all, being a Catholic has to mean something, right?

Well, in simple terms – and here I refer only to those more visible, structural elements of Church membership – being a Catholic means that you’re part of a faith community that possesses a clearly defined authority and doctrine, obligations and expectations. It means that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church, especially on essential matters of faith and morals; that you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish; that you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly; that you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially.

Congressman, I’m not sure whether or not you fulfill the basic requirements of being a Catholic, so let me ask: Do you accept the teachings of the Church on essential matters of faith and morals, including our stance on abortion? Do you belong to a local Catholic community, a parish? Do you attend Mass on Sundays and receive the sacraments regularly? Do you support the Church, personally, publicly, spiritually and financially?

In your letter you say that you “embrace your faith.” Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your baptism as an infant? Your family ties? Your cultural heritage?

Your letter also says that your faith “acknowledges the existence of an imperfect humanity.” Absolutely true. But in confronting your rejection of the Church’s teaching, we’re not dealing just with “an imperfect humanity” – as we do when we wrestle with sins such as anger, pride, greed, impurity or dishonesty. We all struggle with those things, and often fail.

Your rejection of the Church’s teaching on abortion falls into a different category – it’s a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you’ve re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can’t chalk it up to an “imperfect humanity.” Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.

Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That’s ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It’s not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic “profile in courage,” especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas J. Tobin

Bishop of Providence

St. Ambrose - who had experience with politicians connected to the brutal murders of children - would be proud.

Pray for Rep. Kennedy, that like Theodosius, he too might repent, do public penance and sin no more.

USCCB: Contact your representatives

The House and Senate need to hear from you about the health care bill. Voting might start this week.

[Ad from LifeSiteNews.com]

The op-ed the New York Times wouldn't print

Remember Maureen Dowd's anti-Catholic screed?

Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who rocks, wrote to the New York Times. They didn't publish it. Shocking, I know.

So here it is - because we can't take this anti-Catholic attitude lying down:

FOUL BALL!
By Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan
Archbishop of New York

October is the month we relish the highpoint of our national pastime, especially when one of our own New York teams is in the World Series!

Sadly, America has another national pastime, this one not pleasant at all: anti-catholicism.

It is not hyperbole to call prejudice against the Catholic Church a national pastime. Scholars such as Arthur Schlesinger Sr. referred to it as “the deepest bias in the history of the American people,” while John Higham described it as “the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history.” “The anti-semitism of the left,” is how Paul Viereck reads it, and Professor Philip Jenkins sub-titles his book on the topic “the last acceptable prejudice.”

If you want recent evidence of this unfairness against the Catholic Church, look no further than a few of these following examples of occurrences over the last couple weeks:

• On October 14, in the pages of the New York Times, reporter Paul Vitello exposed the sad extent of child sexual abuse in Brooklyn’s Orthodox Jewish community. According to the article, there were forty cases of such abuse in this tiny community last year alone. Yet the Times did not demand what it has called for incessantly when addressing the same kind of abuse by a tiny minority of priests: release of names of abusers, rollback of statute of limitations, external investigations, release of all records, and total transparency. Instead, an attorney is quoted urging law enforcement officials to recognize “religious sensitivities,” and no criticism was offered of the DA’s office for allowing Orthodox rabbis to settle these cases “internally.” Given the Catholic Church’s own recent horrible experience, I am hardly in any position to criticize our Orthodox Jewish neighbors, and have no wish to do so . . . but I can criticize this kind of “selective outrage.”

Of course, this selective outrage probably should not surprise us at all, as we have seen many other examples of the phenomenon in recent years when it comes to the issue of sexual abuse. To cite but two: In 2004, Professor Carol Shakeshaft documented the wide-spread problem of sexual abuse of minors in our nation’s public schools (the study can be found here). In 2007, the Associated Press issued a series of investigative reports that also showed the numerous examples of sexual abuse by educators against public school students. Both the Shakeshaft study and the AP reports were essentially ignored, as papers such as the New York Times only seem to have priests in their crosshairs.

• On October 16, Laurie Goodstein of the Times offered a front page, above-the-fold story on the sad episode of a Franciscan priest who had fathered a child. Even taking into account that the relationship with the mother was consensual and between two adults, and that the Franciscans have attempted to deal justly with the errant priest’s responsibilities to his son, this action is still sinful, scandalous, and indefensible. However, one still has to wonder why a quarter-century old story of a sin by a priest is now suddenly more pressing and newsworthy than the war in Afghanistan, health care, and starvation–genocide in Sudan. No other cleric from religions other than Catholic ever seems to merit such attention.

• Five days later, October 21, the Times gave its major headline to the decision by the Vatican to welcome Anglicans who had requested union with Rome. Fair enough. Unfair, though, was the article’s observation that the Holy See lured and bid for the Anglicans. Of course, the reality is simply that for years thousands of Anglicans have been asking Rome to be accepted into the Catholic Church with a special sensitivity for their own tradition. As Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s chief ecumenist, observed, “We are not fishing in the Anglican pond.” Not enough for the Times; for them, this was another case of the conniving Vatican luring and bidding unsuspecting, good people, greedily capitalizing on the current internal tensions in Anglicanism.

• Finally, the most combustible example of all came Sunday with an intemperate and scurrilous piece by Maureen Dowd on the opinion pages of the Times. In a diatribe that rightly never would have passed muster with the editors had it so criticized an Islamic, Jewish, or African-American religious issue, she digs deep into the nativist handbook to use every anti-Catholic caricature possible, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust, condoms, obsession with sex, pedophile priests, and oppression of women, all the while slashing Pope Benedict XVI for his shoes, his forced conscription -- along with every other German teenage boy -- into the German army, his outreach to former Catholics, and his recent welcome to Anglicans.

True enough, the matter that triggered her spasm -- the current visitation of women religious by Vatican representatives -- is well-worth discussing, and hardly exempt from legitimate questioning. But her prejudice, while maybe appropriate for the Know-Nothing newspaper of the 1850’s, the Menace, has no place in a major publication today.

I do not mean to suggest that anti-catholicism is confined to the pages New York Times. Unfortunately, abundant examples can be found in many different venues. I will not even begin to try and list the many cases of anti-catholicism in the so-called entertainment media, as they are so prevalent they sometimes seem almost routine and obligatory. Elsewhere, last week, Representative Patrick Kennedy made some incredibly inaccurate and uncalled-for remarks concerning the Catholic bishops, as mentioned in this blog on Monday. Also, the New York State Legislature has levied a special payroll tax to help the Metropolitan Transportation Authority fund its deficit. This legislation calls for the public schools to be reimbursed the cost of the tax; Catholic schools, and other private schools, will not receive the reimbursement, costing each of the schools thousands – in some cases tens of thousands – of dollars, money that the parents and schools can hardly afford. (Nor can the archdiocese, which already underwrites the schools by $30 million annually.) Is it not an issue of basic fairness for ALL school-children and their parents to be treated equally?

The Catholic Church is not above criticism. We Catholics do a fair amount of it ourselves. We welcome and expect it. All we ask is that such critique be fair, rational, and accurate, what we would expect for anybody. The suspicion and bias against the Church is a national pastime that should be “rained out” for good.

I guess my own background in American history should caution me not to hold my breath.

Then again, yesterday was the Feast of Saint Jude, the patron saint of impossible causes.

We need more bishops like him. Kudos to Pope Benedict XVI, for appointing him to the New York diocese.

Kennedy's non-apology apology

Remember this story last week, in with Rep. Patrick Kennedy slammed the Church (rather ignorantly) about opposing the health care bill because of abortion?

Good news is he's going to meet with Bishop Tobin.

Bad news is he hasn't really apologized. From the AP:

Kennedy, who is Catholic, says that he never meant to slight the church and that it has every right to promote its beliefs.

But he says the issue facing Congress is, in his words, "access to health care and nothing else."

Right. Because saying

“I thought they were pro-life. If the church is pro-life, then they ought to be for health care reform because it’s going to provide health care that are going to keep people alive. So this is an absolute red herring and I don’t think that it does anything but to fan the flames of dissent and discord and I don’t think it’s productive at all.”

certainly doesn't indicate a desire to slight the Catholic Church. Give me a break, Kennedy.

Not to mention (say it with me now): "Abortion is not health care."

If this is truly about "access to health care" then work to ensure that true health care is provided. If this is truly about "access to health care" then work to ensure that babies in the womb get health care, not vaccuumed to death or ripped limb from limb. If this is truly about "access to health care" help people with morals work in health care, knowing that their conscience rights are protected.

But it's not about "access to health care."

It's about extending the culture of death, because hey, it's certainly profitable.

Bishop Tobin, I could think of a few good uses for that crozier of yours...

Bishop Tobin: 1, Rep. Patrick Kennedy: 0

Rep. Patrick Kennedy makes an idiot of himself:



But, Bishop Thomas Tobin won't let him get away with it. From the Diocese of Providence website (with my emphases and comments):

“Congressman Patrick Kennedy’s statement about the Catholic Church’s position on health care reform is irresponsible and ignorant of the facts. But the Congressman is correct in stating that “he can’t understand.” He got that part right. [Oooh, Bishop Tobin, takin' off the gloves.]

As I wrote to Congressman Kennedy and other members of the Rhode Island Congressional Delegation recently, the Bishops of the United States are indeed in favor of comprehensive health care reform and have been for many years. But we are adamantly opposed to health care legislation that threatens the life of unborn children, requires taxpayers to pay for abortion, rations health care, or compromises the conscience of individuals.

Congressman Kennedy continues to be a disappointment to the Catholic Church [No mincing words here!] and to the citizens of the State of Rhode Island. I believe the Congressman owes us an apology for his irresponsible comments. It is my fervent hope and prayer that he will find a way to provide more effective and morally responsible leadership for our state.”

How's that for some effective, orthodox, take-no-prisoners leadership? It's so nice to see bishops laying down the law.

I'm sending him a thank you letter. Anyone else want to join me?

It's official: Bishop R. Walker Nickless is awesome

Proof?

Ecclesia Semper Reformanda - his first pastoral letter published yesterday.

Some favorites:

"It is crucial that we all grasp that the hermeneutic or interpretation of discontinuity or rupture, which many think is the settled and even official position, is not the true meaning of the Council. This interpretation sees the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church almost as two different churches. It sees the Second Vatican Council as a radical break with the past. There can be no split, however, between the Church and her faith before and after the Council. We must stop speaking of the 'Pre-Vatican II' and 'Post-Vatican II' Church, and stop seeing various characteristics of the Church as 'pre' and 'post' Vatican II. Instead, we must evaluate them according to their intrinsic value and pastoral effectiveness in this day and age."

And,

"It seems to me that in many areas of the Church’s life the 'hermeneutic of discontinuity' has triumphed. It has manifested itself in a sort of dualism, an either/or mentality and insistence in various areas of the Church’s life: either fidelity to doctrine or social justice work, either Latin or English, either our personal conscience or the authority of the Church, either chant or contemporary music, either tradition or progress, either liturgy or popular piety, either conservative or liberal, either Mass or Adoration, either the Magisterium or theologians, either ecumenism or evangelization, either rubrics or personalization, either the Baltimore Catechism or 'experience'; and the list goes on and on! We have always been a 'both/and' people: intrinsically traditional and conservative in what pertains to the faith, and creative in pastoral ministry and engaging the world."

My brothers and sisters, let me say this clearly: The 'hermeneutic of discontinuity' is a false interpretation and implementation of the Council and the Catholic Faith. It emphasizes the 'engagement with the world' to the exclusion of the deposit of faith. This has wreaked havoc on the Church, systematically dismantling the Catholic Faith to please the world, watering down what is distinctively Catholic, and ironically becoming completely irrelevant and impotent for the mission of the Church in the world. The Church that seeks simply what works or is 'useful' in the end becomes useless."

He also seeks to:

1. "renew our reverence, love, adoration and devotion to the Most Blessed Sacrament, within and outside of Mass,"

2. "strengthen catechesis, beginning with and focusing on adults."

3. "protect, build up and foster holy families"

4. "foster a culture where young people can more readily respond to the radical calls of ministerial priesthood and the consecrated life."

5. "embrace the missionary character of the Catholic Faith and the vocation of all Catholics to be, not only disciples, but also apostles."

Read the whole thing, folks. It's good, as in "Dear Lord, please make this man a cardinal" good.

Catholic Bishops: Fix the health care bill

Today the bishops sent a letter to House leaders, to express their "disappointment that progress has not been made on the three priority criteria for health care reform."

The letter:

On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), we are writing to express our disappointment that progress has not been made on the three priority criteria for health care reform that we have conveyed previously to Congress. In fact, the Senate Finance Committee rejected a conscience rights amendment [!] accepted earlier by the House Energy and Commerce Committee [So...President Obama... how about that conscience clause you promised at Notre Dame? When is that going to happen?]. If final legislation does not meet our principles, we will have no choice but to oppose the bill. [Now that is some language with teeth in it!]We remain committed to working with the Administration,Congressional leadership, and our allies to produce final health reform legislation that will reflect our principles.

We continue to urge you to

1. Exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights. No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. It is essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates, and protections for rights of conscience. [In other words, 'We're not kidding, guys. We really, really mean it and we're not going away.'] No current bill meets this test.


2. Adopt measures that protect and improve people’s health care. Reform should make quality health care affordable and accessible to everyone, particularly those who are vulnerable and those who live at or near the poverty level. [I would imagine that the vulnerable include those with disabilities, the elderly, etc. - all those pesky people who need health care and shouldn't have their access limited.]

3. Include effective measures to safeguard the health of immigrants, their children and all of society. Ensure that legal immigrants and their family members have comprehensive, affordable, and timely access to health care coverage. Maintain an adequate safety net for those who remain uncovered. [Because immigrants are people, too.]

We sincerely hope that the legislation will not fall short of our criteria. However, we remain apprehensive when [1]amendments protecting freedom of conscience and [2] ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes. If acceptable language in these areas cannot be found, we will have to oppose the health care bill vigorously. [Bravo! Not only are they announcing opposition, they are also doing it in very clear, very stronglanguage. I'm impressed. ] Catholic moral tradition teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential to protecting human life and dignity. Much-needed reform of our health care system must be pursued in ways that serve the life and dignity of all, never in ways that undermine or violate these fundamental values. We will work tirelessly to remedy these central problems and help pass real reform that clearly protects the life, dignity and health of all.

Sincerely,

Bishop William F. Murphy
Diocese of Rockville Centre
Chairman
Committee on Domestic Justice & Human Development

Cardinal Justin Rigali
Archdiocese of Philadelphia
Chairman
Committee on Pro-Life Activities

Bishop John Wester
Diocese of Salt Lake City
Chairman
Committee on Migration

Kudos to the bishops for standing up and making their voices heard.

Thanks to American Papist for the tip.