Here, they were singing Pabasa at the local chapel, so I gave our cook money to cook for the singers and visitors (not just my food: A lot of folks donate food or money and many of the neighbors and kids come to eat the noon meal).
here is an example someone posted on X to show you what I am talking about:
It is a tradition of uninterrupted chanting or reading of the Pasyon. It narrates the life of Jesus Christ from death to resurrection. pic.twitter.com/RFL09WGzSP
I am pretty well home bound so will not be attending the service.
It is summer time here: The hot season before the monsoon, so I am mainly staying indoors with the air conditioner on.
.........................
and a film for your inspiration.
No, I can't watch it: There is an ambush of a priest in it, and several of my friends died in a similar ambush in Africa...
so what do you do? Join the revolution? Ignore what is going on? or just do your job: Which as a doctor means caring for people, or as a priest, being there as Christ's witness.
My favorite scene is 1:01, where the bishops comes to remove the Blessed Sacrament. He tries three times. The first time, politely. The second time, as a priest removing it despite the opposition of the soldiers, who then throw him out of the church, and the third time, in his robes as a bishop, with people praying with him.
Sort of like Cardinal Sin on EDSA during the people power revolution: where a million Filipinos blocked Marcos Senior's soldiers from arresting General Ramos (and the local army) because he backed the true winner, Cory Aquino.
Francis is still busy canceling Catholics. No, not just Texans or those who dare ask him to clarify a document that goes against 2000 years of Catholic law.
So the Pope told them obey the bishop's council decision because church unity or something.
a win for tradition, right? Not quite:
The bishop was forced to resign because land deal or something...
But of course this is not about long standing customs on how to say the mass, but about a push to make everyone obey the dictates of Francis, aka the dictator Pope, to implement stuff.
Today he backs the bishops conference that wants to continue to center their worship on God (symbolized by the eastern orientation) but seeing how Francis and the Jesuits work, I suspect this is part of a long term strategy to expand the power of the papacy to decide how you should say the mass (and starting a precident that if you say it wrong, you will be kicked out of the church).
So yes, short term it seems that the bishops and tradition won this one: but one wonders what will happen in another twenty years when the pep rally mass Vatican II priests will just happen to be appointed as bishops by Francis minded Vatican to run the place and then voila they can impose their own pep rally masses on the locals and they will just silence locals with the cry of unity using this history to reinforce their power.
why do I say this? Because I saw how it was done in the USA, when those in charge not only changed the mass, inserted lousy hymns we were supposed to sing, and stripped our churches of the statues, art work, and the beloved decor in the name of Vatican II.
In Johnstown, locals managed to stop the modernists from destroying their churches by getting the state to declare their church with it's art work as a heritage site. And in Oklahoma, when one modern priest started tearing down the altar decorations, the tribe went to the priest and pointed out that the church had been built by local tribal funds, so they had a right to stop him from destroying the art work designed with the help of local Indian artists.
But for most folk, we were left in Limbo and told to shut up and worship as directed in our ugly churches with their ugly liturgies.
So who cares? a tempest in a teapot? Yes and no.
there is a psychological reason behind this fight: When the priest faces the people, it emphasizes the Eucharist as a meal (good, but as we see in some parishes in the US, quickly evolves to a pep rally service where the Eucharist is merely a symbol, and receiving the Eucharist is a feel good action so anyone, even those known to be open sinners, can receive the sacrament).
But facing the East or the altar reminds one that the Mass is the retelling of the Last Supper and the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and when we receive the Eucharist, we are literally receiving Christ into our deepest soul so we need to approach this with humility. But it also be a problem: going to fancy church service means showing off your latest fashion to the others in church, and limiting your beliefs to one hour a week.
the Eastern churches tend to be more mystical in worship so sought to keep their ancient worship service, but they ran into a fight with the modern liturgists who cited Vatican II and wanted the pep rally mass.
The western church emphasizes logic and deeds, but the eastern church, influenced by the mysticism of Hinduism etc. has more emphasis on the mystical relationship to God.
The eastern churches, both those still under the Pope and those who are Orthodox, know this, and this is why their worship has more emphasis on the mystical, whereas the western church has strayed into logic and good deeds so deeply that only an agnostic Jungian psychologist like Jordan Peterson dare to point out the importance of worship: because this leads one to the deeper meaning of what life is about.
But for some reason Francis is making a major case about what most of us who are Catholics see as a minor issue, partly because both sides of the argument are correct
but also because how we approach God is partly dependent on our culture. So Yanks worship God by doing good deeds, Philipinos worship God in fiestas and see God and Mary as part of our family, and Africans dance for joy because you show happiness with your whole body, not by quiet prayer.
Sigh
Which brings us to India:
In a video-message to the Archeparchy of Ernakulam-Angamaly, the Pope asked not to break the bond between the Church of Rome and theirs. pic.twitter.com/RI2YvWNIZD
.Obey the pope or else you aren't Catholic? Why? Because he can. It is a power play to show who is the boss.
I repeat: For ordinary Catholics all this should be a tempest in a tea pot, and the bishop allow the exceptions if the parish people desire it. No big deal.
But seen through the eyes of power politics, this is about sending a message to obey or else.
Right now, the decision is against the modernist priests, so presumably the conservative Catholics should be happy.
Except: one suspects that the Vatican will stealthily appoint the modernist priests as bishops in the near future, and they will decide to change the mass to the newfangled western pep rally liturgy.
Why do I say this? Because this is how Francis works: saying one thing and then letting his minions destroy the church in his name and not correcting them when they spout heresy or nonsense....
Removing bishops who are orthodox and appointing those who are friendly to his reforms is also part of the way to destroy the church, as is openess to sin in the name of openess to sinner who no longer are urged to repent because hey God loves you. (in contrast, the old church let everyone in because they figured everyone was a sinner. But the priest didn't try to pretend sin didn't matter).
But maybe the worse problem with Francis is his morphing of doing good deeds into the only way to serve God. Sorry but before Vatican II the norm in the old church reminded us we were the hands of God in the world: Caring for our family and our neighbor, and having religious orders to open hospitals and schools was the norm. (But then Vatican II told the religious to do their own thing and skip the prayers, so many left).
Francis is just pushing the boundaries of this last part: changing the church's role in the world, to make the Catholic church (and her many institutions) obedient to the policies of the NWO and to forget that inconvenient part about Jesus and just turn the church into a secular NGO.
Ironically this agnostic Irish playwright foresaw this fifty years ago:
update:
==================
....
and in the meanwhile, Francis is backing the latest global warming stuff.
No, this is not bad theology per se. Respect for nature and promoting sustainable development goes back to St Benedict's monasteries, who after the fall of Rome not only preserved ancient books and opened schools and hospitals, but taught modern farming techniques to the local peasants.
But Francis and his minion bishops go furthur than condemning companies that pollute the environment: They want to get rid of the capitalist economy that lifted much of the world out of poverty over the last 50 years. And condemning modern appliances and transportation that let us live more comfortably because fossil fuel is bad.
So yes, Companies who save money by polluting the environment are sinning, but am I a sinner because I breathe better when I use an Air conditioner?
How about when I point out to ivory tower think tanks pushing the idea to get rid of fossil fuel, but who seem unaware of the necessity of using Diesel to run farm machinery to grow food: to grow our (organic) rice, we now use handplows and harvester/threshers instead of doing it by hand, and with (diesel) irrigation pumps we can get two crops a year.
Ecology and green policies are good, but when those proposing them don't have hands on experience with the reality of growing food, what results is tyranny or massive starvation.
UAE’s Sultan Al Jaber says phase-out of coal, oil and gas would take world ‘back into caves’
So I get less upset with the Pope dining with trans prostitutes as I do when the pope kowtows to the elites who have long term plans on remaking the world whose policies will lead to peaceful depopulation at best or massive starvation at worst.
Is the Pope condemning those NWO types including Jane Goodall who push their eco friendly solutions to save Mother Gaia by proposing painless genocide of useless eaters lowering the world's population to half a billion folks (leaving out the details on how they plan to do this).
Musk’s comments came in response to a video clip from an older interview posted by “Wide Awake Media,” in which Goodall advocates for reducing the human population.
remember: She didn't help the local Africans: She lived with chimpanzees.
fast forward to 3:45. Yes, how dare poor people cut down forests to grow food. Eliminate them (not those lovely animals, but the Africans who just want to farm to feed their families).
As for that part about lowering the earth's population to 500 million, something that the ecotypes want as the ideal earth: this was the population of the world in 1600. Lots of famines and epidemics back then.
Heh. The "whistleblower" behind the complaint to the ICC against Duterte about the drug war withdraws his complaint, saying he was paid to do it by the opposition party. well, duh. next thing you know, someone will find a CIA is funding the opposition. if you think American politics is cut throat, just watch the shenanigans here. ---------------------------- in other news: still awaiting the volcano to blow. ------------------ The Pope's book kerfuffle. The elites have their "two popes" movie that portrays Benedict as an a..h... and now he goes and writes a book about the priesthood. Pointing out that a priest is not just a cheerleader or an MC leading a happy pep rally but something more: a man dedicated to God as another Christ. (it's in Paul, by the way). Andrew Greeley has pointed out years ago that celibacy is not the problem, no, it's not about celibacy: it's about reform (or rather, re- forming the church into the NWO church of nice). So what says the present Pope? As late as last year he insisted the wisdom of celibacy but is using the astroturf Amazon synod to change things under the pretense that this was asked for by popular demand: this is gaslighting, of course: spreading confusion, saying one thing and doing another and then denying he said it. as for popular demand: Most Catholics would allow a married priesthood, because we see the good Protestant pastors who are married. But a priest is not merely the leader of a service or a preacher: And this book reminds those who came after Vatican II about the deeper implications of the priesthood.
The compelling quality of the priest is ...something much stranger, deeper, and more mystical: the fascination for another world, for that mysterious dimension of existence hinted at sacramentally by the universe here below and revealed to us, however tantalyzingly, in the breaking of the bread.
Such nuances are what we used to have philosophers to explain: nowadays, pop psychology rules, of course. Father Z posts on it LINK and LINK and has Cardinal Robert Sarah's letter/ The catholic equivalent of the Onion (or the Babylon Bee), Eccles is saved, has a summary here: either Benedict didn't write it or he should shut up. Eccles has other satires, such as: If Ricky Gervais gave a Vatican press conference and a lot of digs about the paganism and the betrayal of Chinese Catholics. ========================== StrategyPage has a report on the decline of Islamic terrorism and the opposition to these groups by most Muslims, but also reports the unwillingness of the Europeans to acknowledge they still have terrorist supporters in their midst, including among their "refugees". In Europe, the unassimilated immigrants don't report these wanna be terrorists (omerta?) because they are rarely prosecuted, but in the USA, where Muslims are better assimilated, they are reported and arrested.
I don't read a lot of the "exposes" of abuse, because they tend to be cherry picked "ain't it awful" stuff with unconfirmed gossip pushed as facts.
Think: Windswept House, or the other hyper verbose non fiction by Malachi Martin, or worse: I read another writer who actually believed the awful revelations of Maria Monk and didn't realize they were made up by a prostitute who never had been near a convent.
So when I found RandyEngels book the Rite of Sodomy on Internet archives, I didn't expect much, but when I checked it out, I found it was basic reporting with little purple prose.
If she changed her name and the title of the book, it would be easier to take her seriously given all the footnotes in the book
The reporting is very dreary repetitious dry stories of abuse: all 1700 page of it.
But what I found especially interesting is the footnotes, which give a lot of background and gossip on what was going on in the church.
But again, one has to remember the cases are a small percentage and ignores the many more clergy who are faithful.
The problem is the cover up: often out of misplaced compassion:and a lot of the cover up was done at the advice of psychiatrists and lawyers, which by the way Engles does mention this problem. And like all witch hunts, it ignores false accusations: Think McMartin preschool and the satanic ritual abuse hysteria.
and in the background: a traditional anti Catholicism found in America made a lot of folks question the claims for a long time.
For example, John Paul II saw so many similar false claims by the communists to destroy the church, which is why he found a lot of the accusations hard to believe.
And in Italy,, hitting on boys by the rich was not a big thing. Which is why Alister Crawley and others went there to enjoy themselves.
The difference, of course, is that in America, it is the dregs of society, i.e. those who were victims or knew victims, who immigrated and are a little less blase about such things. (Ditto for Africans, who see in the call for legalizing homosexuality just another way for letting the rich and powerful, both local and tourists, prey on their youth).
the old anti Catholicism was by fundamentalists, but the new inquisition is more likely to come from gay rights groups and feminists. So there is a lot of folks out there who will cherry pick the bad and try to destroy the church.
The Pope, after his "who am I to judge" about a repenting pedophile, has been quiet on the problem: He is now saying, hey, I'm worried about homosexuals in the priesthood, and well maybe we shouldn't let gays into our seminaries.
well, DUH.
I'll believe him after he fires a couple of notorious bishops who he has running his "synods".
the problem is not a person with same sex attraction who is faithful: (which half of them are, if one believes Andrew Greeley's statistics, not "opinions" by those untrained in statistical surveys.)
I remember one gay religious brother who worked with us in Africa: We asked the priests how he got in, and was told: He was watched carefully during his training, and he was so holy that they decided to make an exception.
Sounds about right.
but if those in charge wink at such things, or worse, encourage it, such men are in terrible danger. It's the promiscuity that is the problem.
Sigh. Don't ask me. I'm just a doctor and we just try to pick up the pieces.
As for abuse: I mainly saw abused girls, and about half the cases were fake, and most of the rest were minor or ambiguous (e.g. sex while drunk or she changed her mind and he didn't stop, which were terrible for the girl of course, but would never hold up in court). But a couple cases were terrible and we helped send them to jail, where the good honest criminals would undoubtedly punish them for their sins.
Sigh.
finally, let me remind you: What is going on in the church is being purged.
The other shoe hasn't yet dropped on what is going on in the public schools, where the problem is worse.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office said the nation’s K-12 schools lack a systemic approach to preventing and reporting educator sexual abuse of students, despite a problem that the report said affects an estimated 9.6 percent of students – nearly one in 10 – who are subjected to sexual misconduct by teachers, coaches, principals, bus drivers and other personnel during their K-12 career.
That figure is from a 2004 report made to the U.S. Department of Education and is the most recent estimate available, according to the Government Accountability Office report released last week.
Sigh.
Danny Hastert, call your office. Guess who wants more money.
I linked earlier to a site that discussed the gossip that the Wuerl scandal, that said his firing and "golden parachute" actually would lead to him having more power.
GetReligion discusses and has several links to news articles on the scandals, including this one that has affirmation of the gossip:
Now, if you read the long New York Times piece on Wuerl’s exit — with evidence that his power in Rome may actually increase ...
the gossip said Dolan lost in the fight over who would control US bishops, but this article (predating the resignation) has Dolan defending Wuerl.
Dolan and Wuerl represent, in a sense, the “old guard” of U.S. bishops. Although not aggressively orthodox, the two rose to prominence during Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate.
italics mine
,,, Although Dolan famously capitulated to LGBT activists, allowing them to participate in New York’s St. Patrick’s Day parade, and applauded Michael Sam for announcing his homosexuality (“Bravo!”), neither he nor Wuerl is as radical as some in the clique of Francis-appointed prelates including Cardinals Joseph Tobin and Blase Cupich and Bishop Robert McElroy.
the back story of this is the rumors about the gay agenda being pushed at the conference on yutes that the Vatican is holding. Many suspect the conclusions have already been written to push gay rights. as one sees here, where a "delegate" who is pushing the meme: "inclusion".
“They wanted the church to be more open [...] a multicultural church that’s open to all, that should not be judgmental, a community that makes everybody feel at home, reflecting the message of Jesus Christ,” Morales said, according to a Vatican translator. “The church should not discriminate against minorities or people with different sexual orientations or who are poorer, no.” They also wanted a church more “welcoming” to “fragile” people, as well as a more representative role for women.
Well, the irony is that one does not "join" the Catholic church as one does a protestant church. Anyone can go to mass, and no one cares.
however, to say not to preach repentance from sin so one doesn't feel "excluded" is wrong. And to let people living in sin to receive the sacraments is wrong, as Paul pointed out.
So does "inclusion" include welcoming gays and prostitutes? How about murderers, mafia hit men, crooked politicians and businessmen who steal everything in sight, or crooked politicians who order hits on their political rivals?
Yup. they are all here at mass. No one is chased out unless they openly flaunt their sin.
In the past, the laws were strict, but it was understood that people were in dilemmas and that God would give them mercy.
But now we face not just sin in our bishops, which has been around since Eli's sons schtupped those visiting the Ark of the Covenant or Judas skimmed donations given to Jesus to support his work.
What we have now is a Pope whose minions want to change the laws themselves, because niceness is the highest rule (never mind those who are harmed when they wink at sin). This is something very very different.
So how the church should act when confronted with sinners?
If one is too strict, they will leave in despair and anger and never be open to repent, but if one is too lax, you end up with people who simply don't know what they are doing is wrong.
And maybe instead of "reforming" bishops by looking the other way, the Pope should have study sessions on St Gregory the great's instruction about how to find good bishops and how those bishops should rule.
The church has over a billion people and has been around for 2000 years, so it's not as if we face something new. Most Catholics know the clergy is not the church: And the mass is more about meeting Christ in the sacraments than it is about glorifying the pastor or even "celebrating" each other as in some "modern" Catholic churches.
The bishop/priest is a sinner? Well, he is still a priest. And his ability to give you the sacraments is not changed any more than if your doctor was sctumping all the nurses or cheating the IRS would mean that your penicillin wouldn't cure your pneumonia.
so do you leave because of corrupt bishops? Or do you stay because that is where you find God?
Oscar Romero was just canonized, to the delight of the left and despair of the right wing in the church. watch the movie here.
But he faced the problem that I saw in Africa: Do you remain silent when faced with atrocities by the government and by the "rebels", or do you confront them? He dared to criticize government atrocities and was killed, but you know, quite a few priests who criticized the "rebels" in various third world hellholes also were killed (quite a few were killed by FARC in Colombia, for example, and we had priests and sisters killed by both sides when I worked in Zimbabwe in the 1970s.)
so do I leave the church because of Wuerl's sins, or do I stay because I knew priests and bishops who were martyred for defending the rights of the people?
uh, pray? But that implies there is a God, and that God is in control.
read the whole thing (which is subtle, not a political screed).
-----------------
update: From PJMedia: if you think things are bad, well, just remember the 14th century. Includes this reminder:
...the Church had been infiltrated for centuries with power-hungry frauds (much like what infiltrates us today in the form of con-artist televangelists and pedophile priests).
Thank God there were faithful men and women of integrity and industry who truly helped their fellow man, but it's easy to remember the power hungry and oftentimes immoral people at the top. It's easy to forget the pious people at the bottom who faithfully lived out the truth of God in spite of the corruption around them.
Yes, evil gets the headlines, but the ordinary good folks are the reason that the world doesn't end.
at the worst of times, there are good priests: or as Chaucer noted:
He was a shepherd and not mercenary.
And holy though he was, and virtuous,
To sinners he was not impiteous,
Nor haughty in his speech, nor too divine, But in all teaching courteous and benign.
To lead folk into Heaven by means of gentleness
By good example was his business.
But if some sinful one proved obstinate,
Whoever, of high or low financial state, He put to sharp rebuke, to say the least.
I think there never was a better priest.
He had no thirst for pomp or ceremony,
Nor spiced his conscience and morality,
But Christ's own law, and His apostles' twelve He taught, but first he followed it himselve.
Professor Leon Podles, who has written a book about abuse problems in the Catholic church, discusses one case he is familiar with.
he notes that seminarians who are initiated into gay sex (as young adults) could then believe it was okay, and the abuse would continue.
And remember: it's not like a gay falling in love and lapsing. These are serial abusers, who often have numerous victims (something noted by the grand jury). Alas, too many victims are too ashamed to come forward, or else blame themselves.
also: Notice that the accuser was vilified?
reminds me of a case in Altoona, where a patient cried on my shoulder that her husband was asked to intervene with the family of an abused boy: telling them not to destroy the career of the nice visiting priest.
shortly thereafter, the bishop actually wrote a letter claiming that no cases of abuse had been reported since he took over.
(/sarcasm)
no one believed that, of course, so when a priest who had met a young man at a local gay bar, and that kid and his mom concocted the story that the priest had abused his younger (i.e. underage) brother and sued the diocese, the bishop actually let the case go to court, the defense being that the priest involved only liked young men of legal age.
The jury, knowing it was a money scam, (heck, the entire diocese knew it was a money scam) nevertheless found for the boy and told the diocese to pay him oodles of money, as a way to "punish" the bishop and give him a headsup that people were disgusted.
One note: The huge numbers in Pennsylvania that are being cited went back 70 years: and often they were the result of serial abusers...
and what you didn't see is the many good priests who tried to do their best in this toxic environment.
----------------------- Get Religion, a blog that covers how the press reports (and often distorts) religious stories, has an article about the Cardinal who spilled the beans and named names.
yes, the MSM is putting this as those nasty and rigid conservative Catholics who oppose the Pope trying to "reform" the church.
Conservative American Catholics have been among the most vocal opponents of Francis’ agenda since he came into power in 2013. They have resisted his efforts to bring back into the fold those Catholics who have fallen away from the church because they are divorced and remarried, or are gay or lesbian, or are secular nonbelievers.
before Vatican II, the innocent party of a divorce who remarried Catholics just went to mass but didn't receive communion. After Vatican II, they could get annulments. Similarly, before Vatican II, Gays could repent go to confession, and try again and again to stay pure. Now, Francis wants to accept those who flaunt their gay lifestyle and be full fledged members of the church and not have their lapses seen as sins.
As for secular non believers: Why would they want to go to church?
in other words, they are opinion pieces posing as news, supporting Francis when he preaches against the 2000 year old ethics of Jesus against divorce and lust: and what is worse, we have reporters telling Catholics what we should believe, and they condemn those who try to follow the rules.
so they will smear the messenger instead of trying to find the truth about abuse by those who support the liberal "reform" agenda being pushed by the MSM.
So what is missing? GetReligion points out:
Well, what is NOT going on here is an attempt to find out if Vigano has stashed away copies of documents that back many of his highly specific claims. Also, as his letter notes, the original documents are in the Vatican's main U.S. office and locked away in key locations in Rome. Will the defenders of Francis (and McCarrick?) produce original copies of documents that refute Vigano?...
and they go on to note and provide links where Vigano was accused of a coverup, and he provided documents to defend himself.
--------------------
so why do I remain a Catholic?
Because we know good priests and bishops, who are trying to just do their work and help us to remain holy, by giving us mass and the sacraments.
I know priests who were martyred. So who is more typical? Abusers or martyrs?
first of all, why should I do "penance" for someone else's sins? (we do reparation for sins, which is something quite different).
the crisis has been around quite a long time (indeed, most of the cases in the abuse report predate 2002).
But this NYT article from 2002 shows how he will quickly use it: not to reform the church into holiness, but to weaken church traditions to make the newfangled NWO reform church as merely another do gooder NGO where any type of sex is okay.
Deep in the article, which condemns the church considering gay sex a sin, we see this:
I interviewed several dozen gay priests across America. With assurances of anonymity (lest their bishops punish them for coming out of the closet), they promptly began discussing their sex lives. I asked why, if they could not practice celibacy, they didn't leave the priesthood. Most saw themselves as leading the church toward the reform of outdated moral teachings -- including celibacy.
yup. moral teachings are sooo out of date, so let's change them.
and notice: His opinion is based on a small survey of a few cherry picked gay priest he knew. Not from a scientific survey.
Hmm... sounds like Cardinal McC and Wuerl's approach to pro abortion politicians, and Wuerl's easy going approach to tolerating gay priests cruising in the bars of Pittsburgh at a time when the abuse crisis was exploding and we in Altoona diocese were getting it publicized in the local papers, but couldn't get anything done.
What's wrong with this picture?
Well, most of this article quotes unscientific estimates and data: So let's see what Andrew Greeley, who is a trained sociologist, found with his real data from scientific survveys (as opposed to estimates that were made to push an agenda)...
this is also an article from 2004.
so celibacy causes the problem? Not quite:
Patently, most men who leave the priesthood do not leave because of celibacy. They must also dislike the work of the priest to the extent that they say they would not choose again to be a priest.
so why don't happy priests say anything when the activists push this agenda?
Despite the happiness and maturity of most celibate priests, few of them are willing to speak out in its defense. Hence there is little resistance to the constant propaganda that celibates are inadequate human beings and that celibacy causes child abuse. The proper response to these attacks would have to come from priests themselves and especially from the organized priest groups such as the National Federation of Priests’ Councils.
Yet these groups are committed to the abolition of the celibacy rule ..
Whence the destructive smoke and mirrors? I suggest that they come from the loud attacks on the current condition of the priesthood by a small minority of former priests, by the tiny minority of active priests who are unhappy, and by the anger of some members of the lay elite.
Those who are happy in the priesthood and those who understand and apparently embrace celibacy have been intimidated into silence by the anticelibacy crusade. ..
The real cause of the vocation shortage is the reticence of those who are happy in the priesthood and not excessively burdened by celibacy. They may complain about the shortage of priests, but they are not ready yet to do battle with the anticelibacy ideologues, to recruit young men to what is a happy and satisfying life. Nor are they ready to speak, individually or collectively, about the joys of being a priest, joys about which there can be no doubt after studying the results of the two Times studies.
If the celibacy rule is abolished, fine. But let it be abolished for good reasons—that it is right and proper and good for married men to be in the priesthood, not because celibacy has driven out of the priesthood most of those who have left and not because celibacy as such is the cause of the vocation crisis. These two reasons are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
Greeley is supportive of priests: however, he is sarcastic about bishops:
More often, however, episcopal appointments are the result of a mix of cronyism and silent incompetence disguised as virtue.
So what about gay priests, or rather, men with same sex attraction who are priests?
again, the statistics show something different from the propaganda: Greeley pointed out elsewhere that the statistics on the number of gay priests is exaggerated by those with an agenda, (i.e. 70 percent were heterosexual, and only 16percent were homosexuals) and that most of them keep their vows of celibacy. (72% of priests are celibate heterosexuals and 10 percent are celibate homosexuals, and 18 percent admit they don't keep their vows, but only 3% are actively pushing to get rid of celibacy).
It would be a wise policy for church leaders to tone down the hysteria and leave homosexual priests alone, so long as they avoid the gay “scene” and the gay “lifestyle.” Yet perhaps priests who are homosexual should avoid blatant manifestations of homosexual friendship groups, which create the impression of homosexual subcultures.
the problem? That more aggresive gay priests with an agenda will seduce or try to corrupt these vulnerable priests, so they can be blackmailed into silence.
(of course, we lay folks know women who brag about seducing priests too, but that's another story for another time).
so never mind the nuances.
The problem is not priests who keep their vows, but that the power hungry bishops and their friends who are ignoring the immoral behavior under the advice of their lawyers and often because they are friends in a clique.
I have written enough about the coverups, and the bishops who are still there who ignored immoral lifestyles of each other (because they didn't involve underaged children).
But the pedophile cases in the report are old, even if the bishops who let the abuse go on are still around. So fire the bishops.
Except they will be replace by Pope Francis with bishops who will push his "reform" agenda. And that agenda ignores the moral underpinnings of sexual self control in favor of a Kinsey like approach.
why do I suspect the Pope will use this scandal to "reform" the church?
---------------
update: I noted earlier that the Pope's idea that he can change dogma about the death penalty by fiat was not about the death penalty but trying to get people used to his changing dogma by fiat.
And of course, immediately the Gay lobby in the church said: Hey change that dogma about us too.
the guy who runs the "salt and light" network for the bishops explains the pope is beyond the bible and tradition. After a week, someone said WTF, so the passage was removed.
Pope Francis breaks Catholic traditions whenever he wants because he is “free from disordered attachments.” Our Church has indeed entered a new phase: with the advent of this first Jesuit pope, it is openly ruled by an individual rather than by the authority of Scripture alone or even its own dictates of tradition plus Scripture
However, the internet is forever, so the article is posted HERE.
yes, even if one is an agnostic, from a practical standpoint, religious laws and legal traditions encode thousands of years of pragmatic experience.
and the Pope is not a dictator who can change God's law (he can change men's laws, i.e. minor stuff, but not God's laws).
and the scandals are just the tip of the iceburg on the sexual revolution of the 1960s.
Forget the "Pennsylvania" report (we lay folks already knew this stuff): the real bombshell is Richard Sipes letter can be found here.
those who were behind the report are still there, and unrepentant.
Diocese Secretary for Communications, Tony DeGol, said the latest report is an opportunity for the voice of the victims to be heard...."Their stories need to be told. Many people have suffered greatly and people need to know about that suffering and most importantly the church and everyone else in society needs to learn from their suffering."
Everyone else needs to learn? WTF? So I am supposed to feel guilty that when the lay folks tried to get the bishop to pay attention to the abuse going on, we were ignored?
Steps taken since 2016 include a Diocesan Office of Children and Youth Protection, an independent oversight board, educational training programs and ongoing victim/survivor assistance.\
yup. Another oversight bureaucracy will do the trick.
No talk of sin or evil here, folks, just move along.
we layfolks knew what was going on back in the late 1990's.
2003 story shows that the local papers were reporting on the problem, so it's not exactly new. More HERE. and HERE.
and it says a lot that the DA who helped break the case was eventually convicted after leaking information to the press about another case, but the bishops remain free.
Locals in Henan stated concerns of a move by the atheist ruling Community Party to control Christianity
Residents were asked to replace posters of the cross and Jesus Christ with portraits of President Xi Jinping
Experts say the government is waging the most severe systematic suppression of the religion since 1982
Chinese leaders have 'always been suspicious of the political threat' that Christianity poses to the regime
The BBC talk show yesterday on our tv was lamenting about Trumpieboy daring to tell Europe to pay for their own defense.
The broad in charge of the panel spouted all the anti Trump talking points, and essentially said they should ignore him because it will be business as usual after the next election.
Actually, their snotty anti American bias is not as bad as when Reagan was president (I lived in Africa and we got the news via the BBC shortwave). Reagan was a stupid cowboy who was going to start World War III.
Only one person mildly tried to explain American politics to her, but didn't do it forcibly.
Attention BBC: a lot of Americans think: Why should I pay my hard earned money to keep you rich snotty European elites safe when you won't defend themselves?
And the isolationist feeling in America didn't start with Trumpieboy: President Obama was popular because he was also removing troops from overseas and told them to pay for their own defense. (UKtelegraph2016):
Mr Obama warned that states are failing to pay their “full share” of spending two per cent of GDP on the military. “I’ll be honest, sometimes Europe has been complacent about its own defence,” he said.
But never mind. Must push memes.
-----------------------
The Federalist pushes back against the meme that Americans are losing their religion, and actually has the hard data from Harvard to prove it. pdf
what is happening is that the lukewarm are no longer going to church, but the believers are leaving lukewarm churches and going to churches where people actually believe and practice their faith.
don't tell the Pope this: He actually thinks his newfangled episcopal lite church is the way of the future.
Mainline churches are tanking... hemorrhaging members in startling numbers, but many of those folks are not leaving Christianity. They are simply going elsewhere...
The percentage of Americans who attend church more than once a week, pray daily, and accept the Bible as wholly reliable and deeply instructive to their lives has remained absolutely, steel-bar constant for the last 50 years or more, right up to today. These authors describe this continuity as “patently persistent.”
one thing is clear: that a large majority of the fathers had not developed the conviction to change the traditional discipline....
But - here is another small step - they drafted formulas of an indefinite tone that, while not providing for access to the sacraments, changed the atmosphere so to speak.
Thus the “non-opposition” to those hesitant formulas (which had trouble getting two thirds of the votes) was enough to allow another subsequent small step: a couple of ambiguous little footnotes in “Amoris Laetitia,” which do not affirm or deny but hint at a certain direction.
This further passage smashed the interpretive boundaries, until in the autumn of 2017 - another step - there came the pope’s official approval of the “Criteria” of the bishops of the region of Buenos Aires on chapter VIII of “Amoris Laetitia.”
But these criteria, if one is honest, are not a simple interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia.” They add and say things that are not to be found in “Amoris Laetitia” and that, above all, had never been approved at the synods and never would have been. […]
and this, of course, is just step one of the agenda to shift the Church from being the bride of Christ proclaiming the good news, into becoming a NGO doing social work. and those groups pushing the PC agenda are organized, and funded by the new PC Francis loving bishops in the US. (if you read the link, notice the utopian marxist language used).
In effect, the Catholic church is in real danger of a schism, but the MSM cheerleaders won't mention this, or notice that this weakness in moral teachings are the reason behind the huge shift of Catholics in South American and the Philippines away from a church that pushes the green agenda/NWO/liberation theology, into evangelical churches that push actual Christian beliefs.
this is not new: Mother Angelica pushed back on this agenda in 1993.
Sorry if this bores you, but a schism in the church has a lot of geopolitical implications.
and the usual suspects are worried that it isn't fast enough.
Many of Francis’ public statements on bioethics, especially as developed in Evangelii Gaudium, appear to adopt a weak postmodern position; that is, a position that avoids directly underscoring an objectively true moral-theological position.
Such a “weak theology” does not require Roman Catholicism to confront secular bioethics directly, much less to convert the world to Christ. This short paper outlines the dramatic change in framing context that Pope Francis proposes for Roman Catholic theology, which will also subtly but substantially change the character of Roman Catholic bioethical concerns.
hmm...
----------------------------------
the Manafort kerfuffle is about smearing Trumpieboy, but the actual thing he is charged with predates Trump's run for the president of course.
Philosopher Peter Kreeft's lenten meditation at Plough magazine.
The only God I believe in is the one Nietzsche ridiculed as “God on the Cross.” In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it? I have entered many Buddhist temples and stood respectfully before the statue of Buddha, his legs crossed, arms folded, eyes closed, the ghost of a smile playing round his mouth, a remote look on his face, detached from the agonies of the world.
But each time after a while I have had to turn away.
And in imagination I have turned instead to that lonely, twisted, tortured figure on the cross, nails through hands and feet, back lacerated, limbs wrenched, brow bleeding from thorn-pricks, mouth dry and intolerably thirsty, plunged in Godforsaken darkness. That is the God for me! He laid aside his immunity to pain. He entered our world of flesh and blood, tears and death.
according to a few Blog posts, the ladies on the View ridiculed those who "heard God's voice" as mentally ill.
True, those who "hear voices" of any sort could be having auditory hallucinations: Auditory hallucination are often a symptom found in psychotic episodes (from schizophrenia, mania, depressive psychosis, or illness, fever, drugs, or poisons): that is, a sign of a serious mental illness.
But sometimes they are hynogogic hallucinations: From the border of sleep and awareness. This is not associated with mental illness.
however, God doesn't usually "talk" to us as in a hallucination (at least in my experience).
He talks to us in advice from others. He talks to us in coincidences. And he talks to us in the silence of our hearts when we are quiet.
Like Elijah: when told to wait for the Lord's voice, he ignored the wind, the storm, the rockslide the earthquake and the fire. And then:
and after the fire a still small voice.
This is how most people know God's voice: it is small and it is quiet and "heard" in your heart, not a hallucination of an actual voice.
(but one note of caution: often our own will is shouting do this or do that, so if the voice is about a decision, the wise caution to get a second person to discern if you should do it).
the still small voice is the voice of our conscience.
The best place I have seen this portrayed in a book is in the humorous books (link) about Don Camillo, a feisty priest in Northern Italy who often fights against the communist mayor, often using fists. Often at the end of the story, the priest goes to pray to Jesus on the cross, who talks back to him and often corrects him.
The Christ in the crucifix often has far greater understanding than Don Camillo for the troubles of the people, and has to constantly but gently reprimand the priest for his impatience....
According to Guareschi, priests who object to his portrayal of Don Camillo may break their staffs over his head, and Communists who object to his portrayal of Peppone may break a hammer and sickle across his back, but no one is to criticize him over Christ's voice, for that stands for his conscience.
But there are times when a person hears an actual voice and the person is not mentally ill and doesn't usually hear voices. Often we hear this happening in times of peril or emergencies.
For example, once my father had a tire blowout when he was going 70 mph on the turnpike, and he heard a voice tell him: Pump the breaks pump the breaks. (slamming the breaks will lock them and cause a severe skid, which would have been fatal). No one in the car had said anything, but the voice saved my life and the life of my family.
Subconscious voice? An Angel? My father just shrugged and said he had prayed to "that guy" in our church for a safe trip, so he figured "that guy" told him how to control the car.
"That guy" was the saint portrayed in a statue at the front of our church, the good church father St Athanasius.
DeLima has opposed the drug war here on human rights grounds, and has been wined and dined by the international elites, and more recently been sent a rosary for her work by the Pope.
Isn't that the Pope who said: "Who am I to judge" about gay priests? Guess this includes those committing heterosexual fornication too.
And if you think Trumpie boy is not politically correct in his quips, just check out Duterte's response:
“Yung isa, yung hambog bigyan pa ng rosary ni Pope (That braggart was given a rosary by the Pope),” the President said during an anti-corruption summit in Pasay City.
“Si Pope naman o… Hanapan mo nga ako ng video ng ano, pakita ko kay Pope. Baka magtingin pa si Pope, baka umalis pa sa pagka-Pope yan (Find me that video. Once the Pope sees it, he may leave the papacy,” he added.
“P**** i** sobra na ‘to (son of a b***h). I am just human.”
the video was a photo shop of her and her driver having sex. Obviously fake, but like Hello Garci, it did summarize the public's impression that she was a crook playing a saint, so now she is a laughing stock here, except with the PC meme repeating SJW robots, who insist she is a heroine.
The real news is that she was indeed schtupping her driver and had built him an expensive house in the provinces. So why was he paid off? He was either the best gigolo in the Philippines, or else it was a "gift" to keep him quiet about the drug payoffs from drug lords in a local prison.
but the real question is where did DeLima get the money to give to him?
yes. according to this pope, dogma is not important, ethical behavior is rigidity, and "who am I to judge" covers all sexual sins, (Uh, including those of Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton?)
and one suspects things will get worse, if this is true:
Third, faithful Catholics can only be disconcerted by your choice of some bishops, men who seem not merely open to those who hold views counter to Christian belief but who support and even defend them. What scandalizes believers, and even some fellow bishops, is not only your having appointed such men to be shepherds of the Church, but that you also seem silent in the face of their teaching and pastoral practice. This weakens the zeal of the many women and men who have championed authentic Catholic teaching over long periods of time, often at the risk of their own reputations and well-being. As a result, many of the faithful, who embody the “sensus fidelium,” are losing confidence in their supreme shepherd.
Sigh. In my prayers.
But this is big news, because there is a slow schism going on in the Catholic church, and the MSM and the Catholic press is pushing the Pope to make the church into Episcopal lite church, and letting the NWO-Mother Gaia loving types take over all those schools, hospitals, colleges etc.
and that would have both societal and political ramifications.
The way the Pope is heading, he is pushing actual believers into either supporting the "official" politically obedient church, or going underground: a scenario which is what is going on in China today.
And here in the corner: just a few bishops and we lay people (including EWTN, run by lay folks) quietly serving God in the duties of our daily life, and trying to live an ethical and prayerful life in a world where we are considered "despicable".
Time to do the wash (and hopefully hang it out in the sunshine instead of in the living room).
I'd comment on the news, but it is nothing new, except the "fake news" at the fakenews sites now is turning out to have some truth in it.
Sigh.
here, the "lay group of Catholics", on instruction from the bishops (lead by Cardinal Tagle, who is running for pope), are protesting "extra judicial killings".
Well, that is the equivalent of saying you are for world peace: a meaningless feel good exercize.
so why don't the bishops order their minions to protest politicians who take bribes?
how about Bishops refusing to give big Catholic funerals to crooked politician under indictment for ordering a hit on his rival that killed five people including our nephew?
It's the equivalent of Hollywood pretending they didn't know about their perverts: Everyone knows, but pretends they don't.
One bishop in the US is in tweettrouble for refusing to give a Catholic burial to non repentant people, including those in gay marriages. But even in the US it is okay to give a huge catholic burial to pro abortion, unrepentant philanderer Ted Kennedy.
yes, I am feeling snarky today.
yes there are abuses and even crooked cops here (/sarcasm) but when there aretorture hazing deaths at a Catholic university scandal, one does think the bishops need to teach Thou shalt not kill to their own before they join the deep state types whose real aim is to remove Duterte before he arrests more crooked politicians
yes I am still a Catholic: we catholic figure the twelve apostles included a traitor who took bribes, and eleven who ran away when things got rough, so we don't expect a lot from our bishops...
our sacraments don't depend on the holiness of the priests and biships: it is not subjective but an objective reality: sort of like medicine: Penicillin still works even though the doctor is schtupping all the nurses and overbilling.
What's wrong with saying let a person's conscience be your guide?
The problems of subjective feelings vs reality was discussed as far back as Socrates, say actor Kevin O'Brien.
Socrates made fun of Protagoras’s homo-mensura, which asserts, “Man is the measure of all things.” For clarity’s sake, the homo-mensura can be interpreted as this: “The human-animal’s perceptions and opinions determine the value of all things.” According to Socrates, Protagoras may as well have asserted, “Pig is the measure of all things,” or, “Baboon is the measure,” since those creatures also possess “the power of perception.” Protagoras, foiled by his own maxim, is “no better authority than a tadpole, let alone any other man.” If Protagoras’s homo-mensura is truly so weak, why does anyone bother to uphold it? One possible answer: it makes crowds happy.
As the ancient progenitor of truthiness and alternative facts, the homo-mensura helps sophists win over audiences. “Everyone’s opinions are meaningful and valuable! You can decide on any scientific, political or artistic subject for yourself!” (Cue applause.) The worst effect of the homo-mensura is that it renders futile any attempt to examine or refute “each other’s ostentations and judgments,” for each individual demands respect and narcissistic recognition. “This is surely an extremely tiresome piece of nonsense,” Socrates decided.
, "Your individual situation determines the morality of your actions! You can decide what is right and what is wrong! For God Himself is asking you to put yourself in that position! It's what He wants!" (Cue applause.)
well, those rules were not just made up by the puritans because they didn't like you having fun. Traditions, religious laws and common law are how societies distillate the pragmatic lessons of thousands of years of human experience.
In the meanwhile the Pope wants the church to regress to the morals of the hedonistic 1970's, in the name of "mercy".
As we see in society at large, and now hear even from Rome, sincerity becomes the substitute for faith. What is true can only be “true for me,” and the genuineness of a feeling substitutes for the content of the faith itself.
This is what a pope is now preaching: not against the content of the Catholic faith, which all his predecessors accepted as true; rather against their view that this content has importance — that, in effect, the truth is true, and commands our adherence because it is true, whether we find comfort and pleasure in it, or not.
Instead, any view sincerely held is taken as acceptable, and though we might technically allow it is in error, we must “accompany” the holder to death’s door.
Yesterday, someone on CNN was discussing removing Trump from office. And someone dared to email them and say: a lot of folks would see this as an illegal coup.
why yes.
But why do some people decide to push this idea on an international cable news network? Well, CNN International does tend to be anti American, but even so...
Meanwhile, consistent with Scott Adams’ theory, the press has quit calling Trump Hitler and is now calling him incompetent. Soon, Adams predicts, they will pivot to, “well, maybe he’s competent, but we don’t like what he’s doing.”
----------------------
since I am on a rant about truth and spin and reality: Could I mention that the press has done a lousy job at reporting on the Las Vegas shootings? Three time lines so far.
And I am still waiting to hear where his Filipina girlfriend comes from. Mindanao or Luzon? Catholic, Protestant or Muslim?
I mean the Pinoy community must have some clue, (everyone has a relative who knows someone who knows someone else in the Philippines) but no one seems to have researched much, not even the press here...
The conspiracy theories are starting to sprout in the vacuum.
What do Catalan and Kurdistan have in common (apart from their desire to be their own country?)
Austin Bay points out the cultural basis for this:
Ethno-nationalism contrasts with civic nationalism (e.g., U.S. nationalism) where the body politic's unifying bond is not ethnicity, but shared citizenship in a democratic state established and operating under the rule of laws that protect the rights of individual citizens.
one reason why immigrants in the US have managed to assimilate but they have trouble in Europe is this tribalism idea. A Muslim Somali or Catholic Filipino can become a full fledged American, but he can never really become a German or a Frenchman.
this is the explanation why so many Americans agree with Trumpieboy about the "flag" protests: they are essentially rejecting the idea of civic nationalism in favor of identity politics, which leads to tribalism.
And, by the way, the ceremony of saluting the flag at baseball games goes back to 1918:
On September 6, 1918, during a World Series between the Boston Red Sox and Chicago Cubs—how strange does that sound?—the band in Chicago played "The Star Spangled Banner" during the seventh-inning stretch. The U.S. was in the midst of World War I, and Cubs’ third baseman Fred Thomas, on leave from the Navy at the time, saluted the flag in response to hearing the anthem. Other players followed Thomas’ lead, and the crowd sang along.
The moment was so stirring that the New York Times chose to highlight it, writing, “First the song was taken up by a few, then others joined, and when the final notes came, a great volume of melody rolled across the field. It was at the very end that the onlookers exploded into thunderous applause and rent the air with a cheer that marked the highest point of the day’s enthusiasm
the intellectuals have been sniping at this and the post 911 custom of singing God Bless America, but it is because they ignore the value of custom in society to bind people together.
There is good "multiculturalism" which respects and sees the good in cultures and emphasizes the common values, as opposed to the newfangled "multiculturalism" which seems to be more about hating American culture than about rejoicing in the good parts of other cultures that can strengthen the US as a society.
Reverence is an ancient virtue that survives among us in half-forgotten patterns of civility and moments of inarticulate awe.
Reverence gives meaning to much that we do, yet the word has almost passed out of our vocabulary.
Reverence, says philosopher and classicist Paul Woodruff, begins in an understanding of human limitations. From this grows the capacity to be in awe of whatever we believe lies outside our control -- God, truth, justice, nature, even death. It is a quality of character that is especially important in leadership and in teaching, although it figures in virtually every human relationship. It transcends religious boundaries and can be found outside religion altogether.
Woodruff draws on thinking about this lost virtue in ancient Greek and Chinese traditions and applies lessons from these highly reverent cultures to today's world. The book covers reverence in a variety of contexts -- the arts, leadership, teaching, warfare, and the home -- and shows how essential a quality it is to a well-functioning society.
Trump opposed the election, I suspect because the State Dept opposed it and I suspect partly because it will mess up the war against ISIS.
One hopes Trump will pull a "Harry Truman" and overturn the "experts" and support them (as Harry Truman opposed the SD and supported an independent Israel).
Joe Biden was ridiculed years ago for saying Iraq will stay at war until they break into three countries, so that each ethnic group can have a say in their own destiny.
Heh. Joe was probably right.
But this goes beyond Iraq:
Turkey risks losing their western territory where a large minority of Kurds live.
Given Turkey's history of ethnic cleansing of Armenians and Greeks, and now their push toward Islamification, one does hope this can be settled in a peaceful manner.
------------------------
Get Religion discusses the religious background for the Saudis changing the law to allow women to drive.
much of the pressure to change the law actually is because middle class Saudis, who can't afford a private driver, have to wait for the husband to come home from work to drive his wife to shop.
The original law might have been to protect women, who are vulnerable if they get a flat tire etc. while driving.
but other Muslim countries have no problem allowing Women to drive, and remember: most Muslims do not reside in the Middle East.
-----------------------
related item:
StrategyPage discusses the woes of this group of migrants who never were accepted into Burmese society. And then the Saudis "reeducated" some of them working in Saudi, and voila, an upsurge in violence and Burmese pushback.
September 25, 2017: Burmese suspicions voiced earlier in 2017 that someone was supplying cash to buy arms and otherwise support Rohingya rebels turned out to be true as more became known about the origins of the ARSA (Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army), its founder and why much of the cash came from Saudi Arabia.
read the whole thing for more background and details.
I read that the response of local churches are holding prayer services to pray for those injured, and for the shooter. And the local Muslims are sending apologies and sympathy to those hurt, even though the shooter's religion is not known, and he has a Christian first name.
If someone tries to attack you when you are in a restaurant or bank, what do you do? Hide or Run?
The dirty little secret is that if you are not trained to respond without thinking, you will freeze.
But people who are trained will respond and try to stop the attacker.
One of the worst terrorist attacks in the US was when a single terrorist shot a bunch of peaceful people inside of a nightclub that catered to gays and Hispanics.
Pro gun types say: That would not have happened if those inside had guns and/or had fought back.
maybe, or maybe not.
So yesterday, I was watching Homicide Hunter, and a similar attack occurred, when a paranoid schizophrenic decided to revenge himself on some ent people in a biker bar, who alas didn't have guns inside, but did fight back.
Two dead and six injured was the result.
Alas, as Lt. Joe Kenda points out: the two who died were heroes who died trying to save their friends, but they couldn't convince a jury of this.
