Rejected!

I completely reject the ideas expressed in these two tweets. Why? Because they’re completely designed to shut us up. And, quite frankly, they are both complete lies. If this was going to increase Sr. Joan’s presence, Fr. Martin wouldn’t be whining about it. He knows that, good-hearted Catholics, well-catechized or not, will listen to their cardinals, bishops and priests and that terrifies him when his idols get smacked down.

“It’s just going to increase her crowds,” “The Church doesn’t want you thinking for yourself,” or “You’re immature!” is like having that little devil sitting on your shoulder trying to dissuade people from doing right.  It’s akin to Satan trying to tempt Christ. Trying to create doubt to silence people or prevent them from taking action is a HUGE tool in Satan’s tool belt and Fr. Martin uses them often. Nice try. 

As a woman, the comparison between St. Hildegard or St. Catherine and Joan Chittister is OFFENSIVE. These woman are my idols and Sr. Joan is the polar opposite of them.  They embraced wholeheartedly the truths of the Church and defended them. Sr. Joan? Not even close. She quite often rails against them, downplays them, or tries to drag them into the really big tent with things that are not truths of the Church.

Anyone who encourages people to dissent from Catholics teachings shouldn’t be given a platform, especially priests and religious. We have the world for that.  We don’t need people wearing the uniform (Just kidding, she rejects that) or bearing the title trying their best to confuse the faithful. It’s ridiculous to suggest that the Church should give them a stage. It’s like suggesting that Coke should let Pepsi advertise in their commercials.

Can we talk about the lame accusation that those opposed to Sr. Joan are somehow immature?  Well, I would be in very good company. How about every pope who has affirmed the all-male priesthood? Those silly little popes. Who’s immature one, Fr. Martin? “You’re immature because you disagree with me and my peeps!” doesn’t fly with most of the world, Fr. Martin and it’s intellectually dishonest. It’s simply an ad hominem attack with zero back up to quiet the masses.

Lastly, I’ll mention again his other argument that cancelling Sr. Joan will encourage bigger crowds. First of all, he knows that’s likely not true but let’s say for fun that it is? When, exactly, did the Church base anything on popularity? Christ lost followers speaking the truth. That’s the example we should follow. The Church’s goal should never be to do the popular or avoid the unpopular.  The Church’s goal should be do to what’s right to protect the faithful. Mission accomplished in this instance. Our Church hierarchy should have the same reaction to Sr. Joan as Nancy “I’m a Catholic” Pelosi.  Neither should be given any credence because they don’t actually agree or embrace many Church teachings. They just both self-aggrandizing babes. They promote bitterness against and rejection of Church teachings. They are about as necessary to the faith as, say, Madonna. They might be popular among the old feminist crowd but they are useless to faithful Catholics trying to get to heaven. They’re goals are to rule here on earth and they’re actually the ones that lack the maturity to see the big picture.

 

Advertisements

The Jesuit Identity Crisis

Gotta admit, it’s been entertaining watching some Jesuits spontaneously combust over this. Thankfully, there are still some Jesuits applauding the archbishop. I still hold out hope that the Society of Jesus ship will be righted someday.

Indianapolis archbishop revokes Jesuit prep school’s Catholic identity

Can we just say most of the Jesuits willfully turned in their Catholic identity a while ago?  I realize they still want the advertising perk of claiming to be Catholic, but really, those who don’t twist “primacy of conscience” are few and far between They can’t stand it when people point out the obvious, and the Archdiocese of Indianapolis did that in a big way.

Indianapolis, Ind., Jun 20, 2019 / 01:49 pm (CNA).- The Archdiocese of Indianapolis announced Thursday that a local Jesuit high school will no longer be recognized as a Catholic school, due to a disagreement about the employment of a teacher who attempted to contract a same-sex marriage.

Let’s be a little clearer. This teacher didn’t just enter into a same-sex marriage. He made it public on social media. The reality is that he flaunted and made his sin of sodomy public (probably with Jesuit encouragement) and expected Archbishop Thompson to sit on his hands like a good little boy. Thankfully, Archbishop Thompson showed some true fatherhood and held Brebeuf accountable for 1) never bothering to tell the teacher his immortal soul was in danger and 2) scandalizing the students by acting like there wasn’t a HUGE moral problem with his same-sex marriage.

‘All those who minister in Catholic educational institutions carry out an important ministry in communicating the fullness of Catholic teaching to students both by word and action inside and outside the classroom, the archdiocese said in a statement Thursday.

And before the whining ensues (too late, Fr. Martin’s been ranting on social media already), let’s be clear this wasn’t the Church “going into this teacher’s bedroom.” This was the teacher telling all on social media that he is sinning and dang proud of it. As you will see later, the “we’re all sinners” mantra will be tossed out. That’s totally true but some of us aren’t stupid enough to say that we’re not sinning or to purposely make it public. This is the difference.8` We embrace the teachings even when we fall short of them because we know they are truth. We pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off, get in line for confession and continue struggling against our foolish selves.

‘In the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, every archdiocesan Catholic school and private Catholic school has been instructed to clearly state in its contracts and ministerial job descriptions that all ministers must convey and be supportive of all teachings of the Catholic Church.

Teachers, the archdiocese said, are classified as ‘ministers’ because ‘it is their duty and privilege to ensure that students receive instruction in Catholic doctrine and practice. To effectively bear witness to Christ, whether they teach religion or not, all ministers in their professional and private lives must convey and be supportive of Catholic Church teaching.’

Regrettably, Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School has freely chosen not to enter into such agreements that protect the important ministry of communicating the fullness of Catholic teaching to students. Therefore, Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School will no longer be recognized as a Catholic institution by the Archdiocese of Indianapolis.’

BAM! This is what EVERY bishop in the U.S. should be doing to protect the faithful from scandal. Are the Jesuits going to listen?Clearly not, but dioceses should still make it darn clear that this is completely inconsistent with Catholic teaching and therefore they are not considered Catholic.

School leaders said that despite the archdiocesan decision, ‘our identity as a Catholic Jesuit institution remains unchanged,’ in a June 20 statement to the school community.

Notice how they have to throw in Jesuit in there? They can’t simply say Catholic, because it’s in no way the same. I do have some news for them. Their Catholic identity is gone and was probably gone a long time ago. 

The conflict between the school and the archdiocese began with an archdiocesan request that the contract of a teacher who is in a same-sex marriage not be renewed.

The school became aware of the teacher’s same-sex marriage in the summer of 2017, according to a June 20 statement from Fr. Brian Paulson, SJ, head of the Jesuits’ Midwest Province.

Paulson said the archdiocese requested ‘two years ago that Brebeuf Jesuit not renew this teacher’s contract because this teacher’s marital status does not conform to church doctrine.’

Before we go on, can we look at several of the canons surrounding Catholic education?  I’m sure Brebeuf would like you to believe that it doesn’t matter, but it does.

Can. 798 Parents are to send their children to those schools which will provide for their catholic education. If they cannot do this, they are bound to ensure the proper catholic education of their children outside the school.

So, while the Jesuits are mostly a bunch of narcissists, not everything is about them. WE, as parents, have a duty to ensure our children’s proper Catholic education, and the archbishop has a duty to make it clear that it won’t be found at Brebeuf.

Can. 801 Religious institutes which have education as their mission are to keep faithfully to this mission and earnestly strive to devote themselves to catholic education, providing this also through their own schools which, with the consent of the diocesan Bishop, they have established.

They no longer have the bishop’s consent, because they clearly devote themselves to a Jesuit education, not a Catholic one.

Can. 803 §1 A catholic school is understood to be one which is under the control of the competent ecclesiastical authority or of a public ecclesiastical juridical person, or one which in a written document is acknowledged as catholic by the ecclesiastical authority.

• 2 Formation and education in a catholic school must be based on the principles of catholic doctrine, and the teachers must be outstanding in true doctrine and uprightness of life.

 Ouch!  That has got to hurt.

§3 No school, even if it is in fact catholic, may bear the title ‘catholic school’ except by the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.

Of course, forgetting all other canons, this will be what the Jesuits try their hardest to hang their hat on. “We’re Jesuits and are therefore under our guy, not the local bishop.”  Clearly Archbishop Thompson sees it differently. They better hope they’re right (and the odds of them being right are slim and none) because there’s a wee bit of a problem with “rejecting the legitimate governing authority of the local bishop exercised in accord with the universal law” as Ed Condin hilariously points out here.

Can. 804 §1 The formation and education in the catholic religion provided in any school, and through various means of social communication is subject to the authority of the Church. It is for the Episcopal Conference to issue general norms concerning this field of activity and for the diocesan Bishop to regulate and watch over it.

• 2 The local Ordinary is to be careful that those who are appointed as teachers of religion in schools, even non-catholic ones, are outstanding in true doctrine, in the witness of their christian life, and in their teaching ability.

Can. 805 In his own diocese, the local Ordinary has the right to appoint or to approve teachers of religion and, if religious or moral considerations require it, the right to remove them or to demand that they be removed.

Oh, did I mention that Archbishop Charles C. Thompson is a canon lawyer? Fr. Brian Paulson, SJ, is not. So, yeah.

The school leaders wrote that “After long and prayerful consideration, we determined that following the Archdiocese’s directive would not only violate our informed conscience on this particular matter, but also set a concerning precedent for future interference in the school’s operations and other governance matters that Brebeuf Jesuit leadership has historically had the sole right and privilege to address and decide.

More like “deformed conscience”, but whatever.

Paulson stated that Brebeuf Jesuit ‘respects the primacy of an informed conscience of members of its community when making moral decisions.’

Wrong. Cardinal Arinze has trashed this false notion, as I have written before.  rimacy of Conscience doesn’t trump objective evil. Please see Cardinal Arinze’s complete schooling here: https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/primacy-of-conscience-the-arinze-smackdown-of-the-false-notions/  I realize the Jesuits absolutely need to twist the teaching of “Primacy of Conscience,” but they do it at their own peril and at the peril of those who follow.

‘We recognize that at times some people who are associated with our mission make personal moral decisions at variance with Church doctrine; we do our best to help them grow in holiness, all of us being loved sinners who desire to follow Jesus.’

Wait, what?! Really?! When was the last time you did this? The teacher entered into a same-sex marriage. How did you help him grow in holiness? Did you mention that was a sin or did you simply say “Welllllllllll, that’s “at variance with Church doctrine.’ Carry on!” Please. Does ANYONE buy this? And what’s with “loved sinner?” A little ambiguous. We’re not loved because we are sinners. We’re loved despite the fact. And does everyone really desire to follow Jesus? Or do many desire to follow their temptations?

He added that this problem ‘cuts to the very heart of what it means to be a Jesuit institution with responsibilities to both the local and universal church, as well as for the pastoral care we extend to all members of our Catholic community.’

Can you possibly tell me what it means to be a Jesuit institution these days? AMDG is pretty much gone, replaced by AMSJG.

‘I recognize this request by Archbishop Charles Thompson to be his prudential judgment of the application of canon law recognizing his responsibility for oversight of faith and morals as well as Catholic education in his archdiocese,’ the priest wrote. ‘I disagree with the necessity and prudence of this decision.’

So, the non-canon lawyer thinks he knows more about canon law than the canon lawyer.  Why does that not surprise anyone? You recognized the request and told him to shove it! Remember Ed Condon’s comments, Father. Are you really just disagreeing because he gave a command and you ignored. And, hey, you just might want to go with the archbishop who is a canon lawyer instead of your own silly notions.

The Jesuits maintain that their school’s internal administrative matters should be made by their own leaders, rather than the local Church.

Of course they do.

While the Code of Canon Law establishes that religious orders, like the Jesuits, ‘retain their autonomy in the internal management of their schools,’ it also says that the diocesan bishop has ‘the right to issue directives concerning the general regulation of Catholic schools’ including those administered by religious orders.

Well, somebody finally quotes the Code of Canon Law but it isn’t the Jesuits.

Can. 806 §1 The diocesan Bishop has the right to watch over and inspect the catholic schools situated in his territory, even those established or directed by members of religious institutes. He has also the right to issue directives concerning the general regulation of catholic schools these directives apply also to schools conducted by members of a religious institute, although they retain their autonomy in the internal management of their schools.

Canon law also says that the diocesan bishop “is to be careful that those who are appointed as teachers of religion in schools, even non-Catholic ones, are outstanding in true doctrine, in the witness of their Christian life, and in their teaching ability.

The Church’s law adds that the diocesan bishop “has the right to appoint or to approve teachers of religion and, if religious or moral considerations require it, the right to remove them or to demand that they be removed.”

The Archdiocese of Indianapolis policy, which says that all school teachers and administrators have a responsibility to teach the Catholic faith, is a common interpretation of those norms in U.S. Catholic dioceses.

Imagine that! A policy based on canon law. Silly Archdiocese! Who does that?! Not the Jesuits.

The archdiocesan June 20 statement notes that the archdiocese ‘recognizes all teachers, guidance counselors and administrators as ministers.’ The 2012 Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC Supreme Court decision established that religious institutions are free to require those it recognizes as ministers to uphold religious teachings as a condition of employment.

The school’s leaders claim that ‘the Archdiocese of Indianapolis’ direct insertion into an employment matter of a school governed by a religious order is unprecedented.’

PROVE IT! I know it’s super helpful to your cause to throw these fantasies out there, but can you actually back it up?  And can you cite a canon to prove your point?  As usual, nope.

Fr. Paulson framed the problem as one of “the governance autonomy regarding employment decisions of institutions sponsored by the USA Midwest Province of the Society of Jesus.

‘Our disagreement is over what we believe is the proper governance autonomy regarding employment decisions which should be afforded a school sponsored by a religious order. In this particular case, we disagree regarding the prudential decision about how the marital status of a valued employee should affect this teacher’s ongoing employment at Brebeuf Jesuit.’

Your disagreement is with the Code of Canon Law and Catholic doctrine, which is par for the course for Jesuits these days. I love the way you try to make this about “marital status” instead of objective evil.  That’s so you.

The school’s leaders added that failing to renew the teacher’s contract would cause ‘harm’ to ‘our highly capable and qualified teachers and staff.’

Are you trying to tell me that there are no outstanding teachers out there who actually follow the teachings of the Church? I realize that’s not high on your priority list, but it is in the mission for Catholic education.

‘Our intent has been to do the right thing by the people we employ while preserving our authority as an independent, Catholic Jesuit school.’

Your intent has been to thumb your nose at the teachings of the Church, plain and simple. Your whining about authority means pretty much zip.

The leaders noted that they ‘are prayerfully discerning how best to proceed with the process of appealing the Archdiocese’s directive.’

Fr. Paulson said the province will appeal the decision, first through the archbishop ‘and, if necessary, [pursuing] hierarchical recourse to the Vatican.’

Appeal away, while I continue to pray for high turnover at the Vatican. And while all that’s going on, I hope parents will listen to what the Archbishop is saying and protect their children from a disastrous school like yours. So, I hope your enrollment will plummet until you get your Catholic identity back.

Canon law establishes that ‘no school, even if it is in fact Catholic, may bear the title ‘Catholic school’ except by the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority,’ in this case, the Archbishop of Indianapolis.

Brebeuf was founded in 1962 by the Society of Jesus. Its 2019 enrollment is 795 students, and tuition at the school is $18,300.

The Archdiocese of Indianapolis has previously addressed similar issues.

In August 2018, Shelley Fitzgerald, a guidance counselor at Roncalli High School in Indianapolis, was placed on paid administrative leave. An employee of an archdiocesan school, Fitzgerald had attempted to contract a same-sex marriage in 2014.

At that time, Archbishop Thompson wrote that ‘the archdiocese’s Catholic schools are ministries of the Church. School administrators, teachers and guidance counselors are ministers of the faith who are called to share in the mission of the Church. No one has a right to a ministerial position, but once they are called to serve in a ministerial role they must lead by word and example. As ministers, they must convey and be supportive of the teachings of the Catholic Church. These expectations are clearly spelled out in school ministerial job descriptions and contracts, so everyone understands their obligations.’

He added that ‘When a person is not fulfilling their obligations as a minister of the faith within a school, Church and school leadership address the situation by working with the person to find a path of accompaniment that will lead to a resolution in accordance with Church teaching.’

The archbishop concluded: ‘Let us pray that everyone will respect and defend the dignity of all persons as well as the truth about marriage according to God’s plan and laws.’

Yes, let’s all pray for this. I’m skeptical that the Jesuits involved are actually going to do that but I will hope.

Thank you, Archbishop Thompson, for your courageous leadership. I hope and pray that all bishops in our Church will stop allowing morality to be trounced in our schools and that they, too, will take their duty under canon law seriously.

Our Common Disaster –All Around Mismanagement, Not “Climate Change”

Rome is burning and we’re going to encourage the bad science, stewardship and ecology that is causing California to literally burn? Seriously?  30,000 words spilled on stuff that you can simply Google and find immediately debunked?  This is ridiculous.

First of all, please remember, I live in California.  I realize this might all seem factual to the people outside our state, but to the people who live here, this is a load of bunk.

Here’s the long and short of why California, probably one of the greatest states as far as resources, suffers:  liberal mismanagement, plain and simple. It has zero to do with climate change and everything to do with environmental wackos doing far more harm than good.  We aren’t allowed to clean up our forests, and even Governor Brown, SJ, admitted this helped fuel our devastating wildfires.  We’re not allowed to dig big holes in the ground or dam rivers to store water to match our previously growing population and farming needs. More deference is given to a small fish than to farmers and their crops and livestock in the Central Valley. Oh, and let’s not forget the new third world problem in our cities of using the sidewalks for a bathroom and garbage dump.  None of this is caused by “climate change.”

I’m going to snip a lot of the babbling here.  Nobody can deal with all of the bunk in this piece.  It would be a 100 page blog post. I’ve gone long but this would be ridiculous.  I read the whole thing but I’ll just go with the first few pages to make my point.

https://www.cacatholic.org/common-home

God Calls Us All to Care for Our Common Home

June 18, 2019

California Catholic Bishops Issue Call to Protect Our Common Home

<snip> In short, California is gorgeous.

We are publishing our Pastoral Statement on the fourth anniversary of Laudato Si’ with a two-fold vision in mind: To animate and energize the implementation in California of what Laudato Si’ calls us to do, and to offer a dynamic teaching and evangelization tool for our Catholic faith community and beyond, especially for young people”

Umm, I kind of think the two-fold vision is to distract the people and to try to look relevant. Please stop it, You Excellencies.  It’s rather embarrassing. It pains me to say it because I’m guessing “my guys” signed off on this.

We propose a practical application of the Laudato Si’ message of ecological spirituality—that the ecological well-being of California is meant to be deeply embedded in a spirituality that unites all creatures and all creation in praising God.

Blech.  You know what?  Faithful Catholics are likely not the people ruining California’s “ecological spirituality.”  In fact, the faithful Catholics are probably the ones who show proper stewardship of most things.  We value the fact that God gave this world to us to care for and, oh, by the way, who wants to live in a hell hole? That’s usually the liberals’ choice.

<snip> St. Francis.

To live out integral ecology with joy and authenticity, we are called to recognize the interrelated character of our existence—its environmental, economic, social, and cultural dimensions—and to practice care for all that God has created (LS 10).

Again, the bishops of California might want to look at themselves as the cause for this mess.  For too long they’ve rubber stamped the California politicians who are the real cause of this mess.  How about you lecture them and not us? They stink at the environmental, economic, social and cultural issues, and they always have.  They continue to run our state into the ground because they can’t take an honest look at what they’ve done. It’s always someone else’s problem.  And if you want to look at our poorer areas, “The Valley” and our urban ghettos, the politicians are the ones who devastated those areas. You dare to mention the plight of the farming communities and then try to blame it on “climate change.” This is either stupidity or willful ignorance.

<snip>

Part 1: A Canticle of California

Oh, my gosh.  St. Francis isn’t going to save this cruddy document. This whole thing is such a sappy, sophomoric mess. What is the point?!

<snip>

Starting with the first human settlers, California’s Indigenous peoples, our state’s ecological bounty has attracted immigrants throughout California’s history. What is now California was once home to the greatest concentration of Native Americans, who flourished here due to its ecological bounty. Immigrants of all kinds have brought their cultures, technologies, foodstuffs, and entrepreneurial spirit.

St. Junípero Serra encountered the wild beauty of the landscape, the flowers and the vegetation, as he walked the coast, valleys, and deserts of California.[iv] This pioneering Franciscan provided some of the first documentation of the complex biodiversity and climate of our state, including periods of drought. With humility and mercy, he brought the Gospel to this land and to the native people whose harmonious relationship with the fertile resources of California even now shape our connectedness to creation and our commitment to its protection.

Well, I will say this, they are bold to bring up St. Junipero Serra.  Seriously, if you actually go to the mission he founded, you really need to look in the gift shops.  The books found there are appalling.  In California, St. Junipero Serra is vandalized and villainized more than any other Catholic. The Church here in California really doesn’t talk too much about him, even though he was amazing and brought many souls to the Church.

I went to 12 years of Catholic school.  Elementary school was spent building models, but learning about St. Junipero Serra and what he did for the indigenous people? Not so much.

<snip>

Today, California is the top farm production state in the U.S., generating more than twice the production of any other state. California agriculture is astonishingly diverse and productive. The noble vocation of farming offers an essential service to the human family, but the benefits of agriculture here have not always been shared equally. Technology continues to advance production and harvesting of food, while the rights of workers have not always been protected and advanced.

The farm workers are hurting right now because our farmers are hurting right now.  The farming communities have been devastated by our state legislators and the lack of water, which has ZERO to do with climate change and everything to do with cutting off water to them to save the Delta Smelt and other ridiculous reasons. Even our gas taxes hurt our farmers and farm workers.  They actually drive places, unlike the urban dwellers that vote for these things. Even they’re not happy with the gas taxes, but the state played with the wording on the repeal referendum so much that nobody understood what they were voting for.  Now that it’s in place, whining has ensued, but gas prices always seem to drop the months preceding an election!

People from around the country and the world have come to California for its promise of a better life, natural beauty, and economic opportunities in everything from farming and industry to Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Together, we have created an economy that continues to attract even more people. California has become one of the most urbanized states in the country, with some of the world’s most fertile farmland now under pavement.

I’m sorry, have the bishops somehow missed the Mass exodus? We had far more people leave than enter the last few years.  I can’t tell you how many people I know who are leaving this state.  I’m still waiting for the backlash that happens every 30 years or so.

California faces significant new challenges as we seek to find balance between welcoming new residents and creating the infrastructure necessary to provide housing, water, education, and jobs, while at the same time preserving our fertile farmland and protecting the integrity of our natural resources.

While they are still wrong about the entrance and exit levels, they are not wrong about our poor infrastructure.  We have not had enough water storage to accommodate our population in quite a while.  It’s not because we have had a drought.  It’s because we allow most of our snow pack to run right out to the sea.

Urbanization and the resulting high housing costs lead to pronounced hunger and homelessness. Shortsighted land development practices and policies further the loss of farm and wild lands—without adequately addressing our shortage of more than half a million low-income housing units.[vi] In many ways, we have failed to uphold the common good.

The nanny state, rampant drug use, and now legalization of drugs have probably had a greater impact on homelessness.  I live in the ‘burbs.  We have more housing than we need and it’s much cheaper, yet we still have homelessness.  The exodus of companies to cheaper, well-managed states does not help.  If you think that loss of farmland comes from urban sprawl, you might want to make farming a bit more attractive instead of putting old family farms and ranches out of business by taking away their water. During our greatest “capitalist” years, we also had our greatest breadbasket years.  Those have both gone bye-bye with the out of control management/lack of management.

We urgently need a humanism capable of bringing together the different fields of knowledge, including economics, in the service of a more integral and integrating vision. Today, the analysis of environmental problems cannot be separated from the analysis of human, family, work-related and urban contexts, nor from how individuals relate to themselves, which leads in turn to how they relate to others and to the environment. (LS 141)

I just want to provide context here for the complete and utter financial and environmental mismanagement that has gotten California where we are now.  Not only did we cut water to our farmers, we took their land away to build a train they didn’t want. California has become one big Ponzi scheme, and the only people who will ever be taken care of are the people at the top of the pyramid.  The endless lectures to the rest of us in silly documents like these aren’t going to help.

Laudato Si’ calls us to eradicate hunger and homelessness, which reflect a pronounced moral failure in a place blessed with such bounty.

Some forms of pollution are part of people’s daily experience. Exposure to atmospheric pollutants produces a broad spectrum of health hazards, especially for the poor. (LS 20)

A Catholic perspective on environmentalism is expressed by concern for creatures and land, but also for where people live, work, play, and pray. Land-use decisions play a crucial role in environmental justice—the integration of social justice and environmental protection—and in public health.

It’s grand to mention all these things, but unless you’re going to actually put forth a solution, you are only encouraging these issues to be used to keep the poor poorer and the rich richer.  It’s like saying the world is a terrible place for some, then watching, say, Venezuela happen.  If the Church is going to dive into the science arena, then they’d better start employing some scientists who are faithful to the Church teachings to work on the problems.  A bunch of bishops spouting off with no solutions is just going to make the problems worse.

<snip>

Recently, however, California wildfire behavior has begun to change in ominous ways, harming humans and public health at an unprecedented scale. Firestorms now explode across our landscape with more intense and longer-lasting winds, literally burning through our state starting in spring and extending into winter. Millions of Californians are now forced to breathe hazardous smoke from wildfires, a violation of the common good that we can taste.

Again, forest mismanagement in the problem. This isn’t a natural disaster, it’s a human disaster.  We stopped allowing the forest floors to be cleared (supposedly because of habitats of this or that), which leads to WAY too much fuel. We also put every fire out instead of letting a natural fire burn and clear out the debris.  This creates mega fires, and the mega fires of the last few years have been devastating to our environment. Of all places, I was in Muir Woods on a field-trip with my kids, and the rangers said they were terrified of highly fueled fires from not allowing smaller ones to burn and clean out the debris. This is environmental extremism gone a muck and we’re paying for it dearly.

But as you will see, the bishops get it wrong yet again and blame “climate change.”

The immediate causes are clear: Drought leads to dry vegetation, which is susceptible to burning. Lower-than-normal patterns of rain and snow prompt longer periods of lower humidity. Even though no single event can be attributed to climate change, the broad changes we see in fire behavior are consistent with scientific predictions dating back many years.[viii]

<snip>

While the acute character of wildfires captures our immediate attention, adapting to our changing climate will require our awareness of many different dimensions of life on earth. In the future, a changing climate might make some parts of our state unsafe to inhabit. There is a great need to prepare together to protect the health and safety of all Californians, especially those most vulnerable to instability.

Face it, our state has been a dangerous place to live for years now.  The most vulnerable are in the womb, but hey, let’s focus on “climate change.” Never mind, of course, that it will be used to promote more killing in the womb.

<snipping more dramatic stuff that isn’t really the problem>

 The Laudato Si’ call to live integral ecology means listening to creation and observing what is happening in it. The unprecedented scope and harm of wildfires across California gives notice that something in creation is awry, out of balance, and this calls us to explore how to better care for our common home. To live out a spirituality of the common good, we must recommit ourselves to fostering greater harmony in our relationship with the earth.

Here’s an idea.  Stop telling us to be stupid and listen the environmental idiots.

Praised be you, my Lord, through Sister Water

This is an easy fix.  Dig big holes.  Shore up and add dams. One of our biggest dams is about to crumble and flood the downstream communities.  Talk about an environmental mess!  What’s California doing about it?  That’s about right, nothing.  We’re spending money on a myriad of insane things, but not this.

In California, you can actually find reservoirs managed by the Nevada Irrigation District filled to the brim, while not that far away, one managed by the Army Corps of Engineers is almost empty.  Why?  Because one agency is stupid with their water release schedules and another is not. Thankfully, after the last severe drought, they finally figured out that maybe they shouldn’t release the same amount of water every day if it hasn’t rained.  Big “duh!” there.

<Snip>

As California becomes warmer, the most alarming implication is appearing in our mountains, where more precipitation is falling as rain, not snow. Increased winter runoff threatens more floods, and the Sierra snowpack is melting earlier, reducing water supplies. California’s four warmest years on record have all occurred since 2014, with all predictions suggesting even greater warming.[x] The Colorado River Basin, an important source of water for parts of Southern California, is warming and drying even more quickly.

Whoever drafted this drivel should have at least checked the news!  This is completely inaccurate pretty much since 2017, but especially this year.  It’s June and we’ve still had snow falling!!! Some ski resorts have plans to stay open until August!!!  Why?  Because climate does change.  It’s cyclical.  https://ktla.com/2019/06/03/california-sees-biggest-june-snowpack-in-nearly-a-decade-thanks-to-spring-storms/

<snip>

I can’t possibly deal with the other 60+ pages.  Suffice it to say that they get most of the reasons why we’re in trouble wrong, and while they tell us something we’ve only heard thousands of times, they don’t provide one answer.  Oh, yeah, solar.  Really? In another 20 years as our solar panels start to kick off, we’re going to see one more environmental disaster.  I’m not really against solar panels, but if you think they’re “green” wait until you see the toxins that end up in our soil when people start chucking those – and, yes, they are consumables.  Whatever.  You’ve really said nothing differently than the people who brought us to this horrific environmentally idiotic state.  Disappointing.

Blah, blah, blah… I just find it hard to believe this is where you’re going to spend the moral capital, Your Excellencies, at this moment in time.  I appreciate the small head nod to the vulnerable killed by abortion and euthanasia, but that’s a far bigger danger to our world than the same lecture we get every day from the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Gavin Newsom.

 

EDIT

Social

• View @onemadmomblog’s profile on Twitter

Recommended Links

• Churches Worth Driving Away From as Fast as Possible! Help us build this list of churches to avoid when in a new area!
•  The Language of Dissent by Kevin Lents The Language of Dissent will equip you with all the answers you need against those who distort the Catholic faith.

Archives

• June 2019
• May 2019
• April 2019
• March 2019
• February 2019
• January 2019
• December 2018
• November 2018
• October 2018
• September 2018
• August 2018
• July 2018
• June 2018
• May 2018
• April 2018
• March 2018
• February 2018
• January 2018
• December 2017
• November 2017
• October 2017
• September 2017
• August 2017
• July 2017
• June 2017
• May 2017
• April 2017
• March 2017
• February 2017
• January 2017
• December 2016
• November 2016
• October 2016
• September 2016
• August 2016
• July 2016
• June 2016
• May 2016
• April 2016
• March 2016
• February 2016
• January 2016
• December 2015
• November 2015
• October 2015
• September 2015
• August 2015
• July 2015
• June 2015
• May 2015
• April 2015

BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM.

Heresy of the Day: Dualism

Fr. Martin always tries to play the martyr card when people use the heresy word. Many people have spelled out his errors elsewhere, but I offer one of his latest posts as to why people might think this. Bottom line, he’s really suggesting a form of dualism below. Yes, yes, I know. He never uses the word, but then, he never does, always preferring to remain ambiguous.

So, what is the heresy of dualism (and my priest friends tell me it’s Gnostic Dualism but they’re way more in the know) in very simply non-super philosophical terms? It says that the body and the soul are two separate things which can be in conflict with each other. What is the Catholic teaching of body and soul? The body and soul form once substance, not two. Body and soul are not in conflict. They are one.

Now, those with anything but authentic Catholic thinking are trying to fracture people not just into body here, soul there, but they are now trying to split the person into gender, biological sex, thought, experience, etc., as shown by the post below. It’s ridiculous but it all amounts to dualism.

This post is just a small snippet of Fr. Martin’s load of hooey found here:

What does the congregation propose? Essentially, and unsurprisingly, its document restates the traditional Catholic view of sexuality: Men and women are created (as heterosexuals) with fixed sexual and gender roles. This traditional view, however, is contradicted by what most biologists and psychologists now understand about both sexuality and gender. These contemporary advances in understanding human sexuality and gender have been set aside by the congregation in favor of a binary understanding of sexuality. Even the term “sexual orientation” is put into quotes in the document, as if to call that very notion into question.

So, the Church “view” is contradicted by “most biologists and psychologists”? PROVE IT! And for the sake of argument, let’s just suppose the numbers bear that out (which he fails to prove), IT DOESN’T MATTER IN THE REALM OF TRUTH. Dualism is still wrong.

Before I go on, I have to tell you that James Martin, SJ, is either falling down in research or he’s lying, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that it’s the former. His suggestion that no psychologists were consulted is bunk. Giuseppe Versaldi, the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, actually does have a degree in psychology from the Pontifical Gregorian University. He ran a counseling center and he taught psychology. The Secretary, Angelo Vincenzo Zani, has a degree in social science. Oops! Not sure how Father Martin feels competent to let us know who or who did not weigh in on this document, but he’s been a wee bit off.

This article explains Fr. Martin’s and America Magazine’s problem well:

Have your kids ever peppered your phone’s intelligent personal assistant with random questions? Mine do all the time. It’s a lot a fun when we do it together—the kids get a kick out of it, especially when they start asking potty questions.

Just last night we were having fun asking Siri a variety of questions, and I told my children to ask, “Are you male or female?” to which Siri responded, “I don’t think that really matters.”

I acknowledge that Siri is correct, since artificial intelligences don’t have sexed bodies. But her answer does give us something to consider, since it’s the mantra of the modern transgender movement. Let’s think this argument through.

Two “-isms”

Advocates of transgenderism argue that our sexed bodies have nothing to do with our personal identity, which is why they think it’s possible that a person’s identity as male or female doesn’t have to be in conformity with his or her biological sex. If a person thinks such disharmony exists, they argue, then he or she should be able to harmonize it by conforming to his or her desired identity.

Only heard this a million times. And Fr. Martin suggests in his tweet that biologists, psychologists, or life experiences that support gender dysphoria somehow makes it not a heresy?

It’s a form of dualism, and the idea is not unprecedented. It dates back as early as the writings of Plato and became predominant in modern philosophy with the writings of the seventeenth-century philosopher Renes Descartes. Descartes made this view so popular that it is now known by his name: Cartesian dualism.

See? I told you. Love it when I find really smart guys to back me up.

Descartes taught that the human person is divided into two separate substances: a mental substance (the soul—res cogitans) and a corporeal substance (the body—res extensa). For Descartes, the substance that constitutes who you are as a person is the res cogitans—“the thinking self.” And rather than the body being essential to a person’s identity, as understood in the views of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, it is merely accidental (not belonging to the essence). For Descartes, the body is merely a machine in which the soul exists as a ghost—hence the phrase “ghost in the machine.” 

Like I said earlier, I think that modern day dualists are actually splitting the person even further. Would that make it quadruple-ism or quintuple-ism? Just kidding. It’s pluralism, and philosophers have already covered that.

Constructing your argument

Cartesian anthropology has seeped into the well of our culture, so to speak. Since transgenderism—which holds that a person’s sexed body is separate from the person—entails Cartesian dualism (the body is separate from the person), we have to ask, “Is Cartesian dualism true?” If Cartesian dualism is not true, then transgenderism is also not true.

Of course, it’s a no-brainer for the devout Catholic who embraces the teachings of the Church.

Following the lead of philosopher Scott Sullivan, in his recent book Why Transgenderism is Wrong: A Critique of the Philosophical Assumptions Behind Modern Transgender Theory, we can construct the following syllogism:

P1: If transgenderism is true, then Cartesian dualism is true.

P2: Cartesian dualism is false.

Therefore, transgenderism is false.

I will focus on premise two, and to do that I’ll give two arguments that favor the view that the body is not separate from a person’s identity.

From the inside

The first is from the inside. Notice that as you read this article you sense the words on the screen and at the same time you understand their meaning (unless, of course, I haven’t expressed myself clearly enough). It’s not as if you understand the words but only your body sees the words. In the technical jargon, there is one subject of action, you, who both sees and thinks.

It is this fact of human experience that led St. Thomas Aquinas to conclude that the body is not separate from a person but is essential:

It is one and the same man who is conscious both that he understands and that he senses. But one cannot sense without a body: therefore, the body must be some part of man (Summa Theologiae, I:76:1).

Obvious if you ask me, and yet missed by so many. Fr. Martin appears to say that person and body can be separated and put at conflict by thoughts or experiences. Wrong.

If you are reading the words on the screen and sensing the words involves the body, then it necessarily follows that your body is not separate from you—like a car is separate from a driver—but your body with its biological design is you. In other words, the body that allows you to sense the words is essential to your identity as a human person, along with your rational soul that enables you to understand the meaning of the words. You are not your soul alone, nor are you your body alone, but you are both body and soul. Philosophers call this view hylemorphism (Greek, hyle, “matter”; morphe, “form”).

From the outside

The second argument is metaphysical—it takes a third-person point of view by looking at the relation between the body and soul. On a basic level, the soul is that which makes a thing living (ST I-II:75:1). This is the distinguishing factor between animate and inanimate beings.

But as we inquire further, we discover that the soul also makes a living thing the kind of living thing it is with its unique powers. If the soul of a living thing is its vital principle, which it is, then it necessarily follows that the soul is also the principle of that thing’s vital activities. And since it is obvious that there are different living things with different types of activities, then there must be different types of souls.

For example, plants take in nutrients, grow, and reproduce but do not have the powers of sensation and locomotion like animals. Therefore, plants must have a different kind of soul than animals. This is a vegetative or nutritive soul. Non-rational animals have the powers of sensation and locomotion, along with all the vegetative powers, but do not have rational powers—namely, intellect and will.

So not only do non-rational animals have a different soul than plants, they have a different kind of soul than humans. This is a sensory soul. Human beings stand at the pinnacle of living organisms, embodying all the powers of the vegetative and sensory souls plus their distinct powers of intellect and will. Philosophers call this kind of soul a rational soul.

And this is one area where Fr. Martin and his ilk like to lead people astray. He tries to make everyone a slave to their proclivities. We are not.

Now, just like the vegetative soul is the principle of all the powers of plants, and the sensory soul is the principle of all the powers of animals, the rational soul is the principle of all human powers: vegetative, sensitive, and rational (ST I:76:1). As Aquinas concludes, since the vegetative and sensitive powers belong to the human body, and the rational soul is the principle of those bodily powers, the soul is the “form” of the body (ST I:76:1).

Uh, yeah. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen Fr. Martin quote the Summa in the context of same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. Doesn’t fit the narrative.

What this means is that the soul is so united to the body that the two make one substance: a human being. Converse to the idea of Cartesian dualism, humans are not a “ghost in a machine.” Both your soul and your body make up who you are as a human being.

Yup.

Our sexed bodies do matter

If my body and soul together make up the one substance that I am, then it necessarily follows that my male body together with my soul makes me who I am. My male body is not an accident to my personal identity that I can change like my hair color (that is, if I had hair). My male body is essential to who I am as an individual human person.

Although we can excuse Siri for dodging the male-female question, we cannot do so for embodied real intelligences—namely, human beings. Genesis 1:27 was right all along: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

It’s beyond me how a Catholic priest can inflict so much confusion on the faithful, but he’s going to keep giving it the old college try. Sadly, he will one day be held accountable for the souls he leads astray.

One last thing. I ran across this article by Robert George. He basically says the same things pointed out here but he neglects to be blunt and use the “h” word – heresy. He’s basically making the same mistake that Fr. Martin makes with the faithful although I imagine for far different reasons. He fails to do the tough thing and admonish the sinner. I mean, this is seriously dangerous for the soul of Fr. Martin as well as the faithful he leads astray.  He needs to speak the hard truth.  It’s not pleasant but if he loves his friend he will get real and get real fast. They ain’t getting any younger.

 

Mia! You Live in a Glass House!

Well, that was exciting!  Bishop Thomas Tobin (not to be confused with the infamous Cardinal Joseph Tobin) tweeted this, and the Twitter world lost its ever-loving mind:

.

I had to marvel at all the profane, accusatory responses that basically said, “Hate! Hate! Hate! And hate!” while not exactly dripping with love themselves.  Then there were the rather hypocritical ones like this:

Did your ex pop into your head at all, Mia?  You know, Woody Allen?  How about Roman Polanski, who you’ve defended and of who you still speak highly? And what about your brother? But, hey, let’s forget about all those pillars of Hollywood. It’s really Bishop Tobin who is like a molester because he spoke out against a lifestyle that our Faith says is harmful to our souls and which science says is harmful for our bodies? Give me a stinking break, Mia. Maybe if more people in your life practiced the Catholic Faith you’d be surrounded by less sexual abuse.Believe me, I’ve known a few abusers in my lifetime, but the vast majority of priests and bishops aren’t.

Again, are you really the expert on when kids are in danger??? Puh-lease! And, seriously, most of us in sane America know exactly what goes on at these events. I don’t know, maybe “gay pride gathering” means something entirely different in, say, Amana, Iowa, then it does in San Francisco, where homosexual sex on the street, masturbation and nudity in front of children means absolutely nothing to them. And that’s not necessarily at a “pride event.” that can be any given day. It’s just stepped up a notch and protected during the “pride parade.” Is that just peachy with you, Mia, as long as nobody actually touches a kid there? Geez. So, please, get a clue.

And here’s one that tugs at the heartstrings:

Listen, Patty.  I won’t allow you to think that you’re the only one who has a close relationship with a transgendered or same-sex attracted person.  You’re not. I love my friends and relatives and will continue to do so until I die.  Just because I don’t agree with their lifestyle and find it quite dangerous for them, spiritually and physically, doesn’t mean that I don’t love them. It means I love them enough to not accept what is harmful to them. That might be the takeaway from your brother’s life. I don’t want my friends or relatives to end up like that. I’m not going to be a cheerleader for a lifestyle that will likely cause them mental, physical and most definitely spiritual grief.

That’s how I treat all people and I hope that’s how they will treat me because we’re all sinners. Believe it or not, you can disagree with people and still get along. You can even judge their actions and not condemn them to hell. Again, hating someone you feel has an affliction isn’t Catholic ideology. You cannot point to a Catholic clergy member or teaching that says anything to the contrary. And loving people doesn’t mean you should encourage them to live a harmful lifestyle. Catholic teaching is to love a person no matter what their sin. And, more often than not, it’s the Catholic Church that cares for the physical victims of a myriad of immoral lifestyles when all those who initially cheered them on have left them. 

Of course, there was also the usual barrage of twits who throw out “Judge not!” but I can tell you that they couldn’t be more wrong. We are never to judge someone’s immortal soul, but we are totally obliged to judge actions. Everyone likes to point to Christ saving the woman who was to be stoned, but they NEVER seem to remember Him telling her to “sin no more.” Nor do they remember him calling out the woman at the well. So unless you’re going to say it’s fine to shoot heroin, rape someone, or have sex with a child (oh, wait, there’s a push among liberals to accept that as another lifestyle choice), don’t tell me I can’t think same-sex physical relations aren’t a sin. You have your line of morality and I have the Church’s.

So, famous people trying to take Bishop Tobin to task, you might want to not throw stones in your glass house. You’re the ones who endlessly gave kisses to Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Kevin Spacey, and the like. (I’d also include Michael Jackson, but I darn near broke Twitter mentioning him in the list. Apparently, he’s a saint with no credible accusations even though some of them were actually prosecuted. Maybe we could at least agree that it’s twisted of him to sleep in his bed with children? Probably not.) Remember we have a nice standing O on video tape for Roman Polanski. Do we have Bishop Tobin lauding a convicted rapist? Oh yeah, no. Only your club does that.

Bishop Tobin, thanks so much for not letting the Judases in the Church silence you. I’m relatively sure you knew 80+ thousand people were going to respond to you, yet you chose to instruct the faithful and especially tried to protect children.  May you never waver in doing so.

 

 

America: Challenge Roe v. Wade, Just Not So Much

As usual, “The Editors” at America Magazine are all over the map but miss the mark.

The Editors: Roe v. Wade has made abortion politics impossible. It needs to be challenged.

The recently passed abortion laws in Georgia and Alabama have raised the temperature of the national debate nearly to the boiling point. The law in Georgia, keyed to the detection of fetal cardiac activity, would restrict abortion after about the sixth week of pregnancy; it also defines human beings in the womb, at any stage of development, as “natural persons.” Alabama’s law bans abortion at any stage of pregnancy. While these laws allow exceptions for cases where a woman’s life would be endangered by carrying the pregnancy to delivery, neither law has exceptions allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest.

And there should be no exceptions. How a person is conceived doesn’t change the fact that they are a person.

Much discussion of these bills has described them as “extreme,” while almost universally neglecting the most significant cause of such “extremism.” Many commentators recognize that these new laws are designed to mount a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade—but they fail to notice that these laws’ blunt restrictions are a mirror image of Roe’s broad rejection of any practical or effective limits on abortion. When abortion rights advocates defend Roe in order to reject any proposed restriction of abortion, they are taking an extreme position. That leaves no ground open for any compromise on less extreme laws. Pro-life legislators are going to meet the same tooth-and-nail opposition whether they aim to ban all abortions or, as recently seen in the U.S. Senate, attempt to require that infants born alive during an abortion receive medical care.”

The laws in Georgia and Alabama aren’t “extreme,” and they’re certainly not “extreme” because of Roe Vs. Wade. The laws are right (or at least on the right track in the case of those states trying to limit before they ban) because abortion is killing a child. There can be no compromise on that. There is no room for compromise and there never was. America Magazine wants to paint this as a war of extremists, but this is a war of right and wrong. Even if nobody gets it, we are still right to try to ban all killing of children. And America Magazine acts as if minor, incremental moves haven’t been tried since 1973. They seem to want us to keep the status quo we’ve had for decades.  No thank you.

And, because people are going to bring up the areas where both mom and baby “are sure to die!” let me address that. The closest thing to that a situation like that is an ectopic pregnancy, and maybe an advanced cancer of some sort. Let’s look at those before we go on. The Church, and as far as I can tell, Alabama, have the same position on “indirect abortions” as far as treating the diseased parts of the body goes. What does this mean? Ireland used to be spot on in this, which is why they had one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world. It used to be that in every pregnancy in Ireland, a doctor acted as if there were two patients and did his best to save both. Yes, on occasion, there is a “no-win” situation where at least one will die if the diseased part of the body isn’t treated. The Church doesn’t say we can’t treat that diseased part of the body, but the BABY is never considered the disease and this is exactly how it was handled there.

Now let’s use the old “no win” situation of an ectopic pregnancy for those who have never really delved into the issue. It used to be thought that the baby was stuck in the tube and would die, and if the tube should burst or infection occur, the mom would also die. First of all, there have been miraculous “extra-uterine” pregnancies where the baby actually does escape the tube but never quite makes it to the uterus and all turns out well after a c-section delivery. However, the usual course is that the baby will indeed die, and without removal of the tube with baby, mom will also die. The Church has concluded, in a case like this, that a doctor can treat the diseased part of the body and remove baby AND tube to prevent the tubal rupture from causing infection and killing mom. They are not allowed to directly and purposely abort the child (remove from tube) to try and save the tube. That would be a direct abortion. So, in short, the Church has always provided for seemingly impossible situations. I could pitch a number of situations that fit this bill, but it should suffice to say that when there are no plausible treatments for a situation that will save both patients, doctors are allowed to employ a myriad of treatments to save the mother by treating the diseased part of the body (again, not the baby) even if it results in the baby dying. Hearkening again to countries like Ireland, they spent a lot of time figuring out the best ways to treat both patients with fabulous results. We should have been doing this, too. Unfortunately, the status quo here has been “Just save yourself and you can try again later!”.

Consistently over decades, polls show that a significant majority of Americans support stricter restrictions on abortion than allowed under Roe, yet not as stark as those established by these new laws. American public opinion on the legality of abortion is conflicted and contradictory. According to one poll conducted this month, half of voters believe that the six-week “heartbeat laws” are either “just right” or even “too lenient;” another poll found that two-thirds of U.S. adults oppose overturning Roe. But under Roe and its successor decision, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the abortion limits many voters want, even while abortion remains legal, are rendered unconstitutional. About 60 percent of Americans support legal abortion during the first three months of pregnancy, but far fewer—less than one-third—support it up to six months. But Casey’s “undue burden” standard disallows abortion restrictions anytime before fetal viabilit (around six months), which is not what most Americans would choose.

Blah, blah, blah. Morality has nothing to do with polls. It has to deal with truth, and as many have said as of late, truth is still truth even if nobody believes it. America Magazine spews polls left and right as if Catholics believe in moral relativism.

There is a large gap between what Roe requires and what Americans believe about abortion. But addressing this gap remains politically unimaginable for pro-choice activists, as long as they present the possibility of Roe being overturned as an acute political crisis. In reality, the reverse is the case. The ongoing political crisis is a consequence of the persistent failure of Roe and Casey to settle the abortion question and the failure of the Supreme Court to offer any sign that these cases ever will.

We don’t need to address “gaps.” We need to address good, stand up to evil, and embrace truth. We don’t need to worry about polls. Thankfully, many states seem to be recognizing this more and more. They finally realize playing the numbers game didn’t really work. I think “The Editors” realize this, too. I think they get it just fine. They’re just hoping you don’t.

In her majority opinion upholding Roe in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that “the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” On the abortion question, this call has manifestly and expressly failed for more than 45 years, while distorting national politics and contributing to national division. The wreckage of these cases needs to be cleared for the country to move forward.

“Oh, division. It’s so evil.” Listen, there’s three ways this can go down. We can be united in the killing of children, we can be united in the protection of children, or we can be divided over this. I’m happy if everyone picks door number two, but I am willing to live with door number three because I’m sure as heck not going to pick door number one just for the sake of unity. Unity is only grand if it’s moral, and making exceptions to killing children isn’t moral.

The Alabama and Georgia laws are far from perfect. They should have been accompanied by equally vigorous support for women struggling with pregnancy. They will almost certainly be suspended by injunction before they are implemented, and whenever they eventually reach the Supreme Court, they are unlikely to be upheld in all the details of their current form. If these laws are upheld and Roe is overturned or limited, they will need to be modified in order to be practically and justly enforced. But the legislative work of answering the challenging moral questions about abortion will at least be possible. While that will not end political divisions over abortion, it would allow us to engage them more honestly.

Aaaaaaand there’s the usual seamless garment logic. It’s akin to “No, Mr. Fireman! Don’t go in to save people in that burning building until homelessness has been cured!” I’m wondering if America Magazine realizes that there are 38ish crisis pregnancy centers in Alabama, and it was just reported that they have a HUGE adoption rate from foster care, too. Can more be done? Always. Do we have to stuff bills with ever conceivable social ill before we stop killing children? Absolutely not! Start with keeping as many children as possible from being slaughtered and their moms from being irreparably harmed. “The Editors” at America Magazine want you to think that’s “far from perfect.” Does this surprise anyone?

 

Fr. Martin’s Just Helping His Pals

Dear friends at Church Militant/St. Michael’s Media, LifeSiteNews.com and Tradition, Family and Property, who write articles, start online petitions and organize protests whenever I speak: Let me save you some time and effort. Because, lately, here’s what usually happens when you do this.

Awwww…Isn’t this sweet?! Fr. Martin’s just trying to help out his friends. It’s so nice that he’s trying, out of the goodness of his heart, to help people “save some time and effort.” I should probably return the favor. People resisting your efforts, Fr. Martin, don’t care about their time, they care about souls. I’m reasonably sure that even people who agree with you are reading this accolade to yourself and giving it a big ol’ facepalm. I can’t believe you’re going with “You’re all really great people but people love me to death and lavish me with accolades so please go away!” My feeling is that the laity are a little too successful for you, so you’re forced to pump up the speeches to the choir and the events where the majority of the attendees are your age or older. I get it, but you have to admit it looks a little ridiculous when you’ve got to write a really long Facebook post to give yourself a big pat on the back. Seriously, it goes on and on. Lest you doubt me…

It would seem, from this really needy post, that maybe people are actually making a bit more headway in the “Please keep Fr. James Martin, SJ, from misleading the flock!” movement than Fr. Martin wants you to know.

It begins as follows: I am invited by a Catholic organization (school, parish, retreat center) who knows full well of my ministry to LGBT people. So, the organizers are already aware of this one aspect of my Jesuit life, and are, in most places, either neutral about it or openly supportive of it.

This is especially the case when I am invited to speak about LGBT Catholics per se. Obviously, the organizers support this LGBT ministry, and they often invite me with the support of the local bishop, as with the LGBT family retreat at the Jesuit Spiritual Center in Wernersville, Pa.

Eventually, you all get wind of it and write articles about my supposed “heresy” and overall awfulness as a priest, complete with photos and memes of me. Then one of you organizes an online petition, using misleading information, slanderous words and sometimes outright lies.

If you’re going to accuse someone of lying, slandering, and misleading, why don’t you at least give examples, Father? I would think that’s the least you should do. Why don’t you? Maybe it’s because people are quite meticulous when they talk about your heretical statements. They list them line by line. And, really, are you one to talk? You make misleading comments all the time. Here’s one for example. 

As you can probably tell, Fr. Martin is clearly working super hard to make you think the efforts are fruitless. I can assure you they are not. Please see here , here.  here, and here. I’m sure we can find some more if we look around some more, and I know more pushes to cancel are in the works. So you see, Fr. Martin, we don’t lose hope when some liberal institution doesn’t block your efforts.  

For good measure, you label me with names like “heretic,” “sodomite,” “false priest,” “homosexualist,” homoheretic,” “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and “celebrity gay priest.” I’ve lost count of how many names I’ve been called by you. It’s like being in a junior high school cafeteria.

People in glass houses, Father. I will once again remind you that you are not exactly one who should bring up name-calling.  https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/28/update-from-a-hater/ And no, people aren’t hatemongers because they think you are wrong.  https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2018/02/03/with-love-the-hatemongers/ We just think you’re wrong and leading people to the same errors. We got it. This doesn’t please you and silencing us is your goal. Good luck with that.

I will say, though, that I try to stay away from giving you anything to whine about. Using a myriad of words to describe you simply isn’t necessary. I will say that I’m pretty sure that you have espoused heresy a time or two, and I think that people have done a good job spelling out why they believe so:

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/10/02/fr-james-martin-and-accusations-of-heresy/

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/priests-scold-celebrity-jesuit-fr.-james-martin-for-ignorance-arrogance

Soon the number of signatories to the online petition goes sky high, usually in the tens of thousands (with no proof offered) and you egg on your followers to contact the organizers and demand that their invitation be rescinded, and to organize protests on their own on the day of the event.

Ab-so-lute-ly! A good number of Catholics know you are a danger to the Faith. They are rightly exercising Canon 212. I realize you totally hate that and it gets in your way, but, well, too bad.

The organizers field some angry phone calls (usually by a receptionist who has no clue what they are talking about) and they dutifully report them to me, apologize, and assure me that I’m more welcome than ever. Sometimes they put out public statements in support of LGBT ministry.

Well, as shown above, that doesn’t always happen. I’d also like to point out to bishops that Fr. Martin is also really getting into webcasts. That may kind of skirt the regulations of who is allowed to speak. In our lovely age of technology, you might actually have to button down the ability to webcast speakers. While a speaker may not be able to violate “safe environment” protocols, it doesn’t mean they can’t still harm souls. As I’ve said to many, many good bishops, establishing a speakers’ bureau to vet anyone actually speaking would eliminate many of your problems.

Needless to say, I don’t cancel (why would I?) and neither do they. Sometimes, in fact, their resolve is strengthened and it is seen as an important opportunity for them to stand more solidly with the LGBT Catholics in their community (school, parish, and so on) and the LGBT community at large.

Needless to say, I’ve already proven you are wrong. And, some people finally realize that you might be leading people astray.

On the day of the event, a few protesters will show up, perhaps a dozen, sometimes fewer, sometimes more, including children. They hold up the same signs at every event, detailing how terrible I am (“Father Martin’s Bridge to Hell”) and pray the Rosary (against me, I’m assuming) and leave.

You would have a problem with people praying the Rosary, wouldn’t you? And, of course, YOU would make sure you point out how futile you think that is. That said, we know otherwise. God bless those who protest against you.

Usually only a few people see the protesters (I rarely do), and if they do, they are hurt or offended, because most people these days know LGBT people. At the Loyola New Orleans graduation last year, some LGBT graduates saw the signs and made their displeasure known.

So what you’re saying is that those who do what’s right are completely stupid unless hundreds show? Mighty wrong of you, but hey, thanks for the consistency.

Occasionally the controversy around the talk, especially if the talk is about LGBT Catholics, finds its way into the local media, and dramatically increases the size of the crowd, and their sympathy for LGBT ministry, as happened recently at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Ct.

So, again, you’re saying we should only do what’s right when we have the numbers?  Why didn’t anyone tell that to Christ as he hung on the Cross. Honestly, Father. Your protests while saying “It really doesn’t bother me!” are especially lame. It’s about as convincing as you proclaiming “Oh, I’ve never denied Christ’s divinity nor contradicted the Church teachings on marriage!”

Then I give my talk, lecture, retreat or commencement address. Afterwards, especially after parish talks or lectures at colleges and universities, I often sign books and meet people, 99% of whom are kind, gracious and supportive. Almost every person in line will share a story from their faith journeys, which moves and consoles me.

Yes, everyone loves you. You’re a superstar. You’re the only loving person who knows what same-sex attracted people go through.  Etc., etc., etc. 

From time to time, however, there is one angry person, waiting at the end of the line, arms folded, ready to conduct their inquisition of me (which they often film). They are usually disappointed when I say, as I always do, that I am not going against any church teaching.

But again, as shown above, you do. You just don’t think you’re going to get caught. You don’t even attempt to speak in some dioceses because you don’t dare crossing the lines in the sand with some of the bishops. You know you will get a smack down. They’ve already spoken out against you and you haven’t even made that attempt.

But except for that one angry person, they are people who are grateful that someone is talking about LGBT Catholics in a positive way, or they are parents of LGBT children who have felt excluded from their own church, or they are LGBT Catholics themselves who hug me and thank me.

Oh, there are myriads of people who want to think sins (i.e., homosexual ACTS) are actually not sins, and you’re ever so ambiguous with your statements so these people can keep on saying they’re not sinning. Look at one of your favorites, Out at St. Paul, to see that. 

After people share their stories, they sometimes cry in front of me, or we pray together, or they give me a little gift or card, or they show me a photo of their LGBT child (or grandchild, or brother or sister, or nephew or niece). Whenever they do, my resolve to continue this ministry with so many others in this field grows.

Oh for heaven’s sake, stop with the over-the-top sob stories. Just what the heck are they saying and what the heck are you telling them? Do you EVER bother to tell them about living the CHASTE and celibate life? Or are you just continually filling them with hopes of kissing their partners at Mass and marrying? How about you answer the tough questions once in a while? It might make you a tad more credible. Ambiguity doesn’t fly here.

In other words, feel free to continue to protest, but please don’t expect that either I or the organizing bodies will cancel anything. And please don’t doubt that your protests only increase the size of the crowds, embolden organizers to be more supportive and deepen my resolve.

Except, again, some of your talks have been cancelled. Oh, yeah. There’s that reality.  Oops. How pesky is that? I, personally, will resist you at ever turn no matter who is with me. I will totally feel free to protest, and I’m reasonably sure I won’t be alone.   

Because what usually happens is not my pulling out of the event, not the organizers cancelling the event, and not people staying away, but something like this, as at yesterday’s graduation at Xavier University. (See photo.)

Dude! It’s a Jesuit school. I’d really be shocked if they didn’t cancel because, as a whole, the Jesuits are lost. (Thanks always to the faithful ones!)  We’re supposed to be utterly amazed when a Jesuit school does something stupid? It’s supposed to just make the laity fall in line? Please. Are you that prideful??? I guess no answer needed. Do you not think that we realize you bothered posting this in the first place because you are deflated? The choir backs you up, so we’re supposed to say “Well, I guess we were wrong!” Keep dreaming.

In short, your articles, petitions and protests don’t bother me. (Truly: ask any of my friends.) Feel free to continue them, but also know that I won’t be cancelling anything as a result of them, and neither, if history is a judge, will most of the organizers.

I don’t expect you to cancel. It’s quite clear your ego wouldn’t let you make a humble move. Got it. That said, we will ALWAYS make your mission difficult because it leads souls astray and WE love our friends suffering from same-sex attraction.

My brothers and sisters, I hold no grudge against you at all, do not wish any ill upon you, but have also ceased to care about the articles, the petitions and the protests. I send you my peace. As well as my thanks for the big crowds.

You have no peace and you will have none until you fully embrace the teachings of Christ and His Church. When that happens, we will be cheering you on! As long as you continue to twist the truth and undermine the teachings of the Church (the Catechism for one) in an effort to make truth what YOU want it to be instead of what it truly is, people will continue to oppose you no matter how much you cry about it or tell us how futile it is.