Catholic Pillow Fight

The Red Poncho Ladies Are At It Again

2008-05-13T18:05:18+00:00

On May 29, Monica Kilburn Smith of Calgary will be welcomed into the small worldwide community of female Roman Catholic priests.

Where do these papers get these "journalists"? Let me correct this particular writer and help with his fact checking (I'm assuming Graeme is a guy).

Monica Kilburn Smith of Calgary will be welcomed into a growing worldwide community known as "excommunicated Catholics". She may not even be summoned by her Bishop, because it seems that many Catholic bishops have lost much of their testicular fortitude, but that will not alter one whit her ecclesiastical state. Monica may be a priest, but she no longer will be Roman Catholic.

Her ordination ceremony will take place in a United Church in Victoria and, of course, will not be recognized by the global Roman Catholic Church.

So Graeme (can I call you "Graeme"... and how do you pronounce it "Grame", "Grem", or "Greem"?) if this lady's "ordination" is not recognized by the Roman Catholic church, how exactly will she become a Roman Catholic priest?

"Many Catholics, both women and men, have been working for change within the church for centuries," says Kilburn Smith, a chaplain with the Calgary Health Region.

"But the Roman Catholic Womenpriests movement is doing something tangible about it. It seems prophetic and courageous, something I feel called to be a part of."

What they're doing about it is "playing priest", like I used to do when I was 6. I used to put a sheet with a hole in it over my head, and feed Necco wafers to my sister while saying: "Body of Christ". Ok, it was a little sacriligious, but I was 6. These women are grown up, and should know better.

Kilburn Smith says she and other Roman Catholic women priests value the sacramental tradition of their church, but are practising a non-clerical, non-hierarchical form of ordained ministry.

Ordained? Maybe. Roman Catholic? Nope. Also, what they are doing in addition to endangering their immortal souls it putting the souls of others in jeopardy. Can you imagine one of them giving last rites to a dying man who believes his sins are forgiven and he's going to heaven? What a rude surprise for him.

But for all you Roman Catholics out there who are confused about this whole issue, I have an easy test you can use to keep it straight. If your priest has a vagina, her "sacraments" are invalid.

Will supporters of a female Catholic priesthood see their vision embraced by the church in their lifetime?

I'll go so far as to say they won't see a female Roman Catholic priesthood before the Judgment Trump sounds. They'll see the Holy Father consecrate Oreos and milk into the Body and Blood of Jesus before that.

I'm going to mail Graeme and let (him?) know what I think. You can also.

Compassionate Conservatism

2008-05-12T16:15:20+00:00

Mark Shea is a fabulous Catholic apologist, but when he strays into politics, he has a tendency to get it wrong sometimes.
Mark writes:

I'm not so persuaded that either of us have any real idea of the (theological) liberal/conservative demographics of those who serve the poor. However, it's not hard to figure out that sympathy for the poor is not a prime value for Limbaugh et al.

Of course not. But comparing Limbaugh to those regular people who identify themselves as conservative, is like comparing Ronald McDonald to those people who work in the restaurant making the hamburgers on a daily basis.

Oh sure, there is the rhetoric about capitalism as the *real* engine of wealth creation (and it's partly true). And there is something in Limbaugh's loathing for liberal politicians who simple use the disadvantaged in order to maintain their own power. But there is also a note of mocking contempt for the homeless and the poor. "Compassion" is a word that Limbaugh finds extraordinarily difficult to say without a sneer in his voice. And he has taught the Right to say it in just that tone.

I don't think Mark listened to the sentence before when he wrote about Limbaugh's "sneering". The "compassion" (those are sneer quotes) that Limbaugh sneers about is the faux compassion of the liberal pandering to their base with more goodies at the taxpayer's expense. This is not compassion by any stretch of the word. It's slavery. It is a very insidious form of slavery in that the slave doesn't understand that he is enslaved.

True compassion can require giving money to someone who's temporarily down on their luck. True compassion can also require giving a job to someone who needs it. However, true compassion can also require a kick in the ass.

In addition to the corporal acts of mercy like feeding the hungry, we also have to remember the spiritual acts of mercy like admonishing the sinner (ie. Sloth).

Without a grounding in the Catholic tradition (and often even with one) I suspect it's difficult for many, if not most, conservatives to view almsgiving (a historic Christian duty--along with prayer and fasting--that is one of the three pillars of piety according to our Lord) as something other than a contemptible "welfare mentality".

The facts really don't bear that out:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

So I have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Shea on this. The "welfare mentality" he is referring to is alive and well and is a direct result of throwing money at a problem that requires a more "hands on" approach. Rank and file conservatives understand that all those on welfare do not have the "welfare mentality". Also the "welfare mentality" is a symptom of a greater problem in society. And this problem will not be solved by throwing money at it. It will be solved by spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Didn't King Solomon Have A Lot Of Wives?

2008-05-08T19:18:13+00:00

There has been a lot of discussion about the FLDS polygamist group in Texas. From the date of the article on the link, it looks like this group moved to Texas in July of 2004.

ELDORADO, Texas — Folks around here couldn't be more dumbfounded if a flying saucer buzzed the county courthouse and spooked all the sheep this side of Abilene. Polygamists?

A colony of secretive Arizona and Utah men with two, three or more wives apiece wearing ankle-length, gingham pioneer dresses while working the fields under a scorching West Texas sun?

Ooooohhh... "Secretive" men with their gingham clad wives. Looking at this with perfect 20/20 hindsight, it seems that the folks in this group were right to be secretive.

Now as a Catholic, I am more sensitive than others with regards to child abuse (having been required to take Virtus training before I was allowed to be part of a church ministry involving children) and the meaning of marriage as being between one man and one woman for life. But we live in a country with a plurality of religious beliefs.

Stacy puts it very well:

Back to Texas. So the State of Texas has decided that these girls are being sexually abused. Federal and State laws prohibit multiple marriages and intercourse with a minor. But this is part of their religion. If America has religious freedom, than these people have been discriminated against by the government.

"But Stacy, what if your religion commands you to kill and sacrifice animals and babies?" That is an entirely different field of play. Don't leave me a comment stating that.

The government has decided what is best for these children. This is the same government that has decided that it is okay to teach kindergartners that families come in all shapes and sizes. That some families have two mommies, some families have two daddies and that it's okay. This is the same government that has decided that boys in 6th grade need to know how to use a condom properly, so they demonstrate it in an sex education class. The same government who sets up birth control clinics in high schools and directs young girls (GIRLS) to Planned Parenthood to kill their baby that was CONCEIVED OUT OF WEDLOCK. The same government who tells our children that it's okay to be homosexual and allows gay/lesbian clubs to meet in public high schools, yet tells the religious kids they cannot have their clubs because it violates the separation of church and state.

Are the girls getting married in the FLDS case too young to get married? Yes, they are. But how many girls are having intercourse before the age of 15 in our society now anyway?

These are a respectable group of people and they raise their children to be polite and thoughtful. These children receive a better education than what the State has to offer. They don't use drugs, they don't drink alcohol, they don't have intercourse out of wedlock. They don't surf for porn on the Internet, they don't download violent music with questionable lyrics, they don't text message at the dinner table and they're not cutters. Crime is virtually non-existent and STD's do not run rampant.

Are they odd regarding the age they marry? Perhaps. Many theologians believe that the Virgin Mary was herself about 14 when she married Joseph. For thousands of years girls have been married off young and it is only in the 20th century that the change had been made. How many of you had grandparents, great grandparents that you know the female was 14 or 15 when she married your grandfather? This happens for the perpetuation of the species.

Back to Texas. The State of Texas (all states) has decided what is and isn't appropriate for our children. They say that the FLDS belief system is warped. In my humble opinion, I believe that State's belief system is warped.

I find myself in agreement with Stacy on this one. If the young ladies were being married to men against their will, then they need to be rescued. If pre-pubescent children of any kind were being touched sexually, the ones responsible need to be brought to justice.

However, with girls as young as 13 being allowed to have abortions without even having their parents notified, let alone requiring parental approval I find it really hard to condemn these Mormons. Logically, if a 13 year old girl can consent to have an abortion after consenting to a romp in the sack with her boyfriend, she can consent to marriage. If she can consent to marriage, then the state needs to stay the heck out of it.

If it's against the law to discriminate against gays by not allowing them to marry, then how can you discriminate against these women who all happen to want to marry the same man? Besides, since no sexual activity is verboten, all these folks need to do is cohabitate and state that they are married within their church. We have no laws against a man shacking up at the same time and having sex with multiple women.

We have to address the cognitive dissonance in our society between allowing (and even encouraging) young girls to have sex, with the horror of finding out that young girls were getting married.

Where Have All the Sisters Gone...

2008-05-02T18:31:15+00:00

Gone to habits, every one...

Or at least that seems like the trend. The California Catholic Daily reports:

Faced with aging nuns and few new vocations, the 175-year-old Sisters of Mercy religious order � with six communities in California -- has decided to undergo a major reorganization

Yes, this is a problem. But if you look at the picture on this page, the top 5 pictures are from the leadership of the Sisters of Mercy, while the bottom picture is of the founding sisters of the Dominican Sisters of Mary Mother of the Eucharist.

The contrast is striking. On the top there is not a habit in sight. On the bottom, full habits. On the top, a shrinking base of sisters with an average age of 73 on the bottom, a veritable tsunami of vocations with the average age of the sisters being in the 20's.

We have a portrait of two vocational crises. On the one hand, we have sisters going to meet our Lord with nobody desiring to take their place, and on the other hand we numbers swelling so quickly that the order is running out of room to house them.

The mission statement of the Sisters of Mercy starts thusly:

Sisters of Mercy are women who commit their lives to serving God's people, especially those who are sick, poor and uneducated. In the spirit of the Gospel, our mission is to help people to overcome the obstacles that keep them from living full and dignified lives. A life of prayer and community animates and supports us in our mission.

The focus seems not to be serving God, but serving God's people. This, to me, is bass-ackward. You are prompted to serve God's people by loving and serving God, Himself.

However, this is the mission statement of The Dominican Sisters of Mary:

"We are consecrated women first, and so our foremost model is Mary, the Mother of God. Inspired by the charism of St. Dominic, our prayer life comes first so that our apostolate overflows from a contemplation nourished before the Eucharist."

- Mother Assumpta Long, O.P.

Their apostolate overflows from their prayer life. This, in my opinion, is the proper ordering of the priorities.

The California Catholic article continues:

'The whole question of changes in religious life is huge, and there don't seem to be any easy solutions," Dossa told the archdiocesan newspaper. "I think the Mercy community will be a smaller community targeted to needs that aren't being met in other ways."

This seems like a classic case of "lookin' for luv in all the wrong places". I'm not a sister. I'm not even a woman, but I would think that if I were concecrated as a bride of Christ, my first and foremost responsibility would be nurturing the relationship with my husband. This would mean talking to Him a lot, and receiving Him often physically into my body. The rest of the volunteer work would spring from those conversations.

The Sisters of Mercy seem to be spending so much time with the volunteer work, they rarely see their husband (at least from the text of the mission statement).

On the other hand the Dominican Sisters of Mary appear to have it ordered correctly. The results are easy to see.

And here is the money quote:

A "progressive" Catholic community, the Burlingame sisters were listed in Call to Action's 1999 "Church Renewal Directory," as among groups that "support the spirit of Call To Action's 1990 'Call for Reform in the Catholic Church.'" Call to Action, which calls for women's ordination and for Church acceptance of artificial birth control and the normalcy of homosexuality, has five regional chapters in Northern and Southern California. [ed.- Emphesis, mine]

Well, they appear to have tossed the vow of obedience and chastity (at least how it applies to others). They don't appear to be embracing poverty, so how again are these sisters considered professed religious? Ohhh... Because they say they are.

However, there is some good news:

In mid-August, 2007, Sr. Mary Michael, Sr. Ave Maria and Sr. Maximilian Marie set out as "homesteaders" on the community's first mission to the West Coast, staking their claim at our newly established Regina Caeli Convent in the Diocese of Sacramento, California.

These sisters have my (and I'm sure many other's) prayers for the success of their missionary work, and it is indeed missionary work. They are going to bring Christ to the pagans.

If you support the work of these sisters, you can always part with some of the treasure God has give you on their behalf.

(H/T to Gerald)

Billy Ray Cyrus Ought To Be Hoss Whipped...

2008-04-30T00:50:00+00:00

...For allowing his daughter to pose topless for Vanity Fair magazine. Well, let's be fair. You couldn't see any "naughty bits", but as Mike Church said on his radio show, "they 'bedroomed her up'".

Her father was with her on the shoot, and could be seen in some of the photos. What was he thinking? What dad in his right mind would allow his 15 year old daughter to be publicly sexualized in this way?

Vanity Fair defends their choice to shoot her this way. They call it "tasteful" and "artistic". I call it soft child porn.

What has happened to all the wholesome heroines for our young girls? First Zoey 101 (Jamie Lynn Spears) gets pregnant at 16, and now "Hannah Montana" poses topless.

Dads, guard your daughters. And do it better than Billy Ray Cyrus.

(Cross-posted at Catholic Dads)