Per Christum

**Note: The link to the Catholic World News Article below has been updated significantly to include references to the editor supporting pro-choice organizations among other things.***

Thanks for The Catholic Report for reporting this. The basic information, including her blog information, may be found here.

It seems that the editor of the Anchorage archdiocesan newspaper, a Maia Nolan, a self-described cafeteria Catholic, has posted some comments about John Paul II on her personal blog, soon after he passed away. Apparently the uproar is happening now because she has recently been made the editor. Who knows, perhaps she no longer feels this way. Here are snippets from her post, now removed:

Unless you’ve been living in a cave (or lined up outside Toys “R” Us for three days, waiting to buy Revenge of the Sith action figures), you know that Pope John Paul II died on Saturday night. A solemn and momentous occasion, losing the man who’s been the leader of one of the world’s most prolific churches. But I’m finding it impossible to achieve any level of actual papal-passing grief.

Listen, I know some of you out there are JP2 fans, and I think that’s just great. I think it’s really swell to love the pope. And he did a lot of good stuff, what with the reconciling with other religious and visiting 129 countries and all. But before we all get caught up in funeral fever, let’s just check ourselves, shall we? To begin with, the man was 84 years old. That’s old. This is not a man cut down tragically in his prime. He lived a full life. And he got to be pope for an ungodly amount of time (no pun intended).

Then there’s the real issue. This pope, this benevolent, everyone’s-best-friend, Karol-from-Poland pope, was an unbelievable misogynist. News flash, kids: JP2 did not like women. And he spent the last 26 years working overtime to keep us in our place. When it comes right down to it, all the globetrotting and rift-mending in the world doesn’t quite make up for the fact that Pope John Paul II obviously believed that, on a fundamental level, women are not as good as men…

…This is a major moment in Catholicism. It would be nice to think that the next pope might be a little more progressive, a little more pragmatic. Of course, the College of Cardinals is packed with a bunch of old conservative guys who generally share the most recent pope’s reactionary approach to gender politics, so it would also be a foolish thing to think…

Now, to be fair, I did remove some points of her post, mainly because I don’t feel it is appropriate to paste her entire post here. I only left out a part where she argues that since many females help run parishes (as Catechists, etc), females are pretty much running the church anyway. I don’t believe that is a good argument for female priests, but it does show the Church is less misogynist and less hostile to “gender politics” than those who constantly use these particular buzzwords would admit.

Anyway, back to the point. Popes are not above criticism, but what she is criticizing is the long-held Teaching of the Church regarding women’s ordination, not just John Paul II. Here is my beef: for a high-up in any Catholic diocese to post these things is troubling, even if these views haven’t made it into the diocesan newspaper yet. In an earlier post, I suggested that the church tolerates quiet dissension, simply because the wheat and tares always grow together (plus who knows, I could be a tare!). Also I would add that this toleration also applies to those who faithfully press the boundaries of the faith, but who are willing to be corrected and/or disciplined by the Church when they have erred. However, in the case of those in influential diocesan positions who blatantly and willfully teach contrary to the Church and know full-well they are doing it, I think honesty and genuineness demand that the person resign if he or she cannot in good faith affirm the Teachings of the Church. I also think that in order to correct the serious catechesis problem in the United States, bishops need to make sure applicants for influential positions are able to affirm the Teachings of the Church, or at least commit to teaching them publically, even if they have personal doubt. Now, I am not a psychic, so I don’t know if Ms. Nolan will or will not publically teach against Church Teaching (blogging does not necessarily equal public teaching - as Lutherpunk mentioned in the comments below). However, it is extremely difficult (and I am sure personally troubling) to publically uphold something that internally you strongly oppose.

I am sure Ms. Nolan is a fine editor, and a fine English Teacher. However, being a diocesan newspaper editor brings with it certain spiritual and ecclesiastical responsibilities. I challenge her to embrace the full Teachings of the Catholic Church.

I am giving my first tests this week. Here is one I put on the test for the Old Testament class. If anyone misses this, I think I should request their baptism be revoked!

True or False
___ The “fall of man” was when the snake tripped Adam in the garden

It is almost Michaelmas (Friday, Sept. 29th), also called the Feast of St. Michael and All Angels. It was one of my favorite days in my Episcopal youth and seemed to be a favorite with most Anglican parishes in those days. There was usually a “sung celebration” of Holy Communion that often began (at least in the parishes I attended) with the glorious hymn “Ye Watchers and Ye Holy Ones”, one of the few hymns in the Protestant repertoire that actually directly invokes the angels and archangels, the prophets, martyrs, and apostles, and…can you believe it?!…the Holy Virgin herself!! Although the Catholic Church still has the Feast of the Archangels, not much is made of it and most Catholics will take no notice Friday unless they are daily Mass attenders. Sad, it’s a glorious day and feast.

A little history: The Feast of St. Michael and All Angels originated in AD 400s and quickly became a very important day in popular Christianity. During the Middle Ages in the West it was a BIG feast indeed since Michael the Archangel was the patron of all knights and particularly of the Crusaders.

In Great Britain and other European nations Michaelmas was one of the four “quarter days” when rents and bills came due and also the beginning of university terms. It is an ancient custom to eat roast goose on Michaelmas because, well, a flying goose suggested an angel on the wing! It was customary to pay part of your rent or bills with a goose. (Just try that now!)

An English proverb has it: “Feast on goose on St. Michael’s Day, ‘twil keep all poverty at bay.” I don’t know about the truth of that saying, but doing something to honor the Holy Angels on their special day might just keep the Old Serpent at bay!

Almighty God, You have ordained and constituted in a wonderful order the ministries of angels and of mortals: Mercifully grant that, as Your holy angels always serve and worship You in Heaven, so by Your appointment they may help and defend us here on earth; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever.
Amen.

- collect for Michaelmas

I just joined the Knights of Columbus and am now a third degree knight. The K of C started in 1882 as a fraternal organization of support for Catholics, who were often victims of discrimination and underemployment. One goal was to provide for fellow Catholics and their families should the breadwinner die young, which often happened in the working conditions of the 19th century. This blossomed into the organization the K of C is today.

The Knights strongly support pro-life causes and teach charity, unity, fraternity, and patriotism. We are also actively involved in local charity work. You can read more about this at the FAQ on their website. I think it will be a good chance to meet more people locally and get involved in charity work.

It turns out that a leader of a local K of C chapter is a guy I grew up with and went to church with. The leaders introduced him and he looked so familiar, plus his name was the same as the guy I thought he was. However, it seemed weird that a guy who grew up Methodist in my little hometown would be a leader in a Catholic organization 90 miles away! I thought that my situation was just as odd though. So I asked him, and it was the same guy. It turns out he became Catholic in 2000 and got interested in the Knights. It’s a small world.

Anyway, I suggest any male 18 years or over who is a “practical Catholic” look into joining the Knights. You can get involved as much or as little as you want.

I don’t want to be misunderstood in this post. I share the frustration of David and the commenters on his “ Sr. Joan Chittister: The Game is Up?” post. I am with you in often shaking my head at the words and actions of Catholics who dissent from the teachings of the Church yet refuse to go where their views would be welcome.

Having said that, I have to admit that an article is titled “A Woman of Faith and Action” and ran in the August 25, 2006 Faith and Values section of the Huntsville Times inspired in me an odd mix of frustration and humility…and even a little hope for all of us.

She’s a peaceful woman of faith, an earnest seminary student and a fervent anchorhold, a member of an ancient Catholic order of voluntarily sequestered laypeople who dedicate their lives to study and prayer.

Reynolds, in fact, seems harmless - until you glimpse the back of her bumper-stickered car.

“Ordain women,” one of her more prominent stickers reads, “or stop dressing like them.”

Meet one of the new faces of the Catholic Reformation.

Isn’t that precious?

Anyway, most of the article takes a predictable turn from there and paints the picture of a sort of up-and-coming Sr. Chittister Jr right here in my diocese. While I don’t envy the writer for having to tackle a heavy subject like the Catholic ordination at a general interest level and in such a short space, the story does drift into semi-hagiography in some places.

Those frustrations aside, let me get to the two sections the caught my interest.

First:

“The Catholic church has two sets of rules, God-rules and people-rules,” Reynolds said, referring to the church’s statements on the place of scripture and tradition in defining church creed.

God-rules include the divinity of Jesus, the creatorship of God - the sort of beliefs covered by the traditional Apostles’ Creed. The people-rules, the rules built on tradition, include the exclusion of women from the priesthood, Reynolds said.

Hey, there’s dogma here! And some good dogma: deity of Christ, creatorship of God the Apostle’s Creed. Good stuff. Let’s set aside the issue of arbitrarily picking some Church teachings to believe while rejecting others with no apparent basis other than preference and politics. I see some rays of light here.

Next:

Reynolds was raised in a fundamentalist Protestant home. She joined the Catholic church three Easters ago. She’s answered people often about why she doesn’t just leave a denomination that excludes women when so many others now welcome them, including the Episcopal church with its liturgical similarities.

A look of thoughtful sadness passes over Reynolds’ face, and she looks at the heap of soft green yarn tumbling into her lap from her crochet needle before she answers.

“Because the God-rules and the sacraments are that good that I would not leave, despite all the somewhat frustrating people-rules,” Reynolds said. “Because the church can make the invisible visible.”

Then she smiles again.

“It’s like the velveteen rabbit,” she said, referring to the classic children’s story. “It’s really shabby, but the reason it becomes real is because someone out there loved it enough to make it real.

“That’s how I feel.”

Hey, the sacraments! Grace! Theosis! Again, good stuff.

Perhaps sometimes we approach dissidents as if we’re playing a zero-sum game. I don’t think that’s the case with this young lady. Why does she say she stays in the Church: revelation and the sacraments. Those are the same reasons why I’m Catholic.

As I see it, the only issue is the specter of private judgment. If she’s willing to submit to “God things”, the real conversation is how do we establish the difference between God things and man things.

Again, I hope no one misunderstands me. I’m not saying the views of Ms. Reynold’s should be held up as the model. I am saying that this article left me slightly humbled and took a little bit of the my “us v/s them” rip and vinegar out of me.

I could be wrong, but I see evidence of the gift of faith and God’s grace working here. It gives me great hope for Ms. Reynolds and even for sinners like me.

Militant atheist Sam Harris attacks the Pope for daring to suggest that faith and reason aren’t incompatible:

While the pope succeeded in enraging millions of Muslims, the main purpose of his speech was to chastise scientists and secularists for being, well, too reasonable. It seems that nonbelievers still (perversely) demand too much empirical evidence and logical support for their worldview. Believing that he was cutting to the quick of the human dilemma, the pope reminded an expectant world that science cannot pull itself up by its own bootstraps: It cannot, for instance, explain why the universe is comprehensible at all.

Well, we all knew this kind of response was coming, right? Benedict says that reason has been unnaturally narrowed to the domain of the empirically verifiable, and he is inevitably accused of attacking reason.

But we cannot know the existence of God in the same sense that we know the laws of nature. To say that the two modes of knowing must be the same, as Harris does, is itself unreasonable. Reason is not the same thing as science. Reason includes science, but it also includes philosophy. Harris is implicitly confining reason to the bounds of science.

Harris’s piece quickly degenerates into a vitriolic attack on the Catholic Church. Typical. But for a man who makes a living attacking Christianity, he is surprisingly ignorant of Catholic doctrine:

The pope suggests that reason should be broadened to include the empirically unverifiable. And is there any question these new “vast horizons” will include the plump dogmas of the Catholic Church? Here, the pope gets the spirit of science exactly wrong. Science does not limit itself merely to what is currently verifiable. But it is interested in questions that are potentially verifiable (or, rather, falsifiable). And it does mean to exclude the gratuitously stupid. With these distinctions in mind, consider one of the core dogmas of Catholicism, from the Profession of Faith of the Roman Catholic Church:

“I likewise profess that in the Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice is offered to God on behalf of the living and the dead, and that the Body and the Blood, together with the soul and the divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, and there is a change of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into Blood; and this change the Catholic Mass calls transubstantiation. I also profess that the whole and entire Christ and a true sacrament is received under each separate species.”

While one can always find a Catholic who is reluctant to admit that cannibalism lies at the heart of the faith, there is no question whatsoever that the Church intends the above passage to be read literally. The real presence of the body and blood of Christ at the Mass is to be understood as a material fact. As such, this is a claim about the physical world. It is, as it happens, a perfectly ludicrous claim about the physical world. (Unlike most religious claims, however, the doctrine of Transubstantiation is actually falsifiable. It just happens to be false.) Despite the pope’s solemn ruminations on the subject, reason is not so elastic as to encompass the favorite dogmas of Catholicism. Needless to say, the virgin birth of Jesus, the physical resurrection of the dead, the entrance of an immortal soul into the zygote at the moment of conception, and almost every other article of the Catholic faith will land in the same, ill-dignified bin. These are beliefs that Catholics hold without sufficient reason. They are, therefore, unreasonable. There is no broadening of the purview of 21st-century rationality that can, or should, embrace them.

Well, well, well. It looks like Harris needs to brush up on his understanding of Transubstantiation. After all, it is quite embarrassing to make a mistake while attacking other people’s beliefs AND their spiritual leader. Any Catholic schoolchild would be able to explain the meanings of the terms substance and accidents.

***

Harris also wrote a piece denouncing his fellow liberals who he believes are soft on terror. See AllahPundit’s take on it. Has Harris ever thought that maybe there is something intrinsic to secular humanism that causes people to be so wrong on this issue? Or that there is something to Christianity that allows people to think with moral clarity on it? Maybe it has something to do with this statement in the Regensburg address. It pretty much sums up the whole speech:

In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures.

But alas, Harris has no response to this statement. There is little to indicate in his piece that he had accomplished anything more than a surface level reading of the text. As Harris says in his introductory sentence:

The world is still talking about the pope’s recent speech–a speech so boring, convoluted and oblique to the real concerns of humanity that it could well have been intended as a weapon of war.

This is how Harris dismisses Benedict’s thought provoking speech.

He also thinks that the entire address was one long attack on the posivistic method:

While the pope succeeded in enraging millions of Muslims, the main purpose of his speech was to chastise scientists and secularists for being, well, too reasonable.

This wasn’t the “main purpose” of the Pope’s speech. The Pope was rather taking aim at the religious tendency to divorce faith from reason, a tendency that he traces back to the late middle ages. Modern unbelief is an effect of that tendency (one of many), but it is hardly the Pope’s main target. Indeed, if Benedict’s view is right, then secularism should be expected to become less prevalent once this harmful tendency fades away within religion.

The entire point of Benedict’s address was that reason divorced from faith is “incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures.” Deep down, most secularists like Harris probably know that this is true. A society that does not understand the human motivations that drive religion, and more importantly, has nothing substantive to propose in the dialogue of cultures, will be unable to confront the ideological underpinnings of radical jihad. An empty secularism can only offer trite plattitudes about “equality” or “tolerance” will never be able to stand up to the threat of radical Islam.

To Harris, this whole speech is “boring, convoluted, and oblique to the real concerns of humanity.” But au contraire. It is a very relevant statement for our time. The Pope’s diagnosis of the problems facing Western civilization is fundamentally correct.

For those following the recent events in the Charismatic Episcopal Church, the leaders of the CEC at the recent Patriarch’s Council meeting have issued a statement. Many faithful CEC laity and clergy have been asking for this statement for some time. Whether it says what many of these folks want to hear will remain to be seen.

Please check out the Patriarch’s Council Statement (this is a .pdf file that cannot be edited and copied)

To join in on the discussion on this subject, please check out the topic at our forum Patriarch’s Council Statement Discussion.

**Prayer Request Alert: David Z. was informed privately that Betty Adler, wife of CEC patriarch Randolph Adler, is in the hospital with only about 35% of her heart working. Please keep her and the Adler/Tanner family in your prayers. Prayer is urgently needed.**

I have been preoccupied with schoolwork, college apps, and a few other things for the past month, so I have not found time to post much on here. But I did read Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, which was a real treat. The book is an absolutely fascinating study of human psychology and criminal behavior. It also contains an explicitly theological analysis of human sin, guilt, and redemption. It also contains subtle but powerful critiques of nineteenth-century liberalism. But, most importantly for a novel, it was entertaining and enjoyable up till the very end.

Henri de Lubac noted in his book The Drama of Atheist Humanism that Dostoevsky’s philosophical outlook is the perfect foil to Nietzsche’s. Given that the latter point of view is so influential in today’s academia and pop culture, readers of Crime and Punishment will be struck by the relevance of the book’s message.

There are some things in Crime and Punishment that betray a fully Catholic worldview on Dostoevsky’s part (although he was an Orthodox; the two are almost nearly the same). One of the most important themes of the book is the way in which theological communion with God and redemption from the depths of sin affect our relationship with the larger society. The main character, Raskolnikov, is emotionally isolated from his family and friends until he experiences a change of heart. His repentance and conversion “opens up the world,” so to speak, for Raskolnikov. He is only able to fully love his neighbors after he has disowned his sin and given himself over to the mercy of God. This illustrates the fact that religion is not merely a private thing done alone, but it has implications for the society at large. Indeed, Raskolnikov is not even able to bring himself to repentance if it wasn’t for Sonia’s support, love, and encouragement (Sonia is a symbol of the Church).

For those of you who have no clue about what I just said in the last paragraph, I encourage you to start reading Dostoevsky. His ideas and philosophy are born of pure genius, and his novels are entertaining. Certainly it is required reading for anybody who wishes to understand the Catholic worldview. As for me, I am currently beginning The Brothers Karamazov.

I posted this over on our forum, and I thought I could post it here to solicit responses as well. Now before you read the title and think I have become opposed to any charismatic experiences, realize that I do consider myself charismatic, in a limited sense (at least limited from the perspective of most non-Catholic Charismatics I am sure). I am not opposed to the stirrings of the Holy Spirit in our lives, and understand that I believe that the Holy Spirit does work in the Church and in the hearts of believers today. I have even had experiences I consider “charismatic.”

I was reading a book the other day called The Pentecostal Movement in the Catholic Church by Edward O’Connor, CSC (please share opinions on this book if you have read it). He is a charismatic Catholic, supportive of the movement, *but* is also a loyal Catholic, so he lists some dangers that *may* result from Catholics that become involved in the charismatic movement, and honestly, these are some of the same complaints I see folks having about the Charismatic Episcopal Church on our forum. Also, these are dangers that are outright taken for granted in most non-liturgical charismatic churches, and the main reason why I am suspicious of purely charismatic churches. Let me know what you think about these dangers:

1. Illuminism - i.e. folks believe God is telling them something unique that nobody else knows. There is a need to feel “special” and if God isn’t telling you something unique or even mildly provocative, your credibility as a leader/follower is called into question. In my parents Sunday school class when I was in college, there were about 5 people who always said “God told me to…” whether it was which car to buy or even to get up in the morning. Not only does this destroy the free will God created us with, but how can you argue with “God told me…”??

2. Paraclericalism - a downplaying of the role of clergy, or even suggesting there is no need for the Church hierarchy. I have seen this attitude even among charismatic clergy! There is such an emphasis on the experience of the individual, that any kind of formality or hierarchy is looked down upon. The result for some Catholics is to downplay the role of the Holy Spirit acting in the Church, because the Church and her rules seem too “formal,” and the hierarchy too “stifling.” This leads some charismatic Catholics to become cafeteria Catholics, believing only in what gets them spiritually “excited.”

3. Charismania - attributing excessive significance to the charisms while downplaying other spiritual acts. I have seen this, not so much firsthand, but from the testimony of others. Speaking in tongues or prophecy become the litmus tests for true spirituality, while feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc, are downplayed or even ignored. In some churches, the more outrageous the “charismatic” event, the more the Holy Spirit is deemed present. Unfortunately, this means the Holy Spirit is never allowed to work in a dignified and quiet manner.

4. Neglect of Traditional Spirituality - i.e. past spiritual experiences are downplayed or not even studied because it is all about what “I” am experiencing “now.” This can also be seen when the traditional liturgy is “suspended” when the Spirit leads to be replaced by often questionable pet projects of the pastor. There is also a hostility to formality, and to suggest that something should be done a proper way (such as clerical dress or properly executing an essential part of the liturgy) is viewed suspiciously.

5. Tyranny of the Prophetic - This isn’t Fr. O’Connor’s, but is a term used by a good friend of mine from my seminary days. This means that the prophetic, in this case referring to the illuminism mentioned above, can trump anything. In other words, if there is an objection to what the pastor is doing, the pastor just reminds the objectors that he talked to Jesus and “God told him…” and that settles it. 2000 years of Tradition is forced submit to the private revelation of one pastor.

6. Cult of Personality - I have to add this after reading the comments to the post. One commenter makes a good point in that in some charismatic churches, and even charismatic movements, a cult of personality can develop around the pastor or leader. Despite a general suspicion of traditional hierarchy and church order among some charismatics, the pastor, who has been given special prophetic knowledge, is often viewed idealistically. The result is that he can do whatever he wants without discipline or question, including taking huge sums of money from the congregation. Why? Well it goes back to number 5 above. He has spoken with God. That settles it!

Now, these 6 things are not reasons to discard the charismatic movement in the Catholic Church, just a kind of “head’s up.” They are, I think, a good critique of charismatic experiences outside a historical Church. I mention in my article I Can’t Be Charismatic…I’m Catholic that personal charismatic experiences must submit to the Teaching of Christ’s Church, where the Holy Spirit objectively operates. And while renewal movements often spiritually enliven the Church at times when she needs renewal, all renewal must be subject to the Teachings of Christ in His Church. The Holy Spirit operating in the individual will not contradict the Holy Spirit operating in Christ’s Church.

What do you all think?

I was re-reading this article by Sister Joan Chittister today, entitled From Where I Stand. This piece is typical of Sr. Joan’s writings and actually less radical than other stuff she writes.

Does anybody think that it may be time for Sr. Joan to simply admit that she and the Catholic Church have irreconcilable differences and move to another denomination?

Let me ask this: At what point do you drift so far from the beliefs of your own church (or organization) that the intellectually honest and genuine thing to do is simply leave, not because the Church is unloving or has kicked you out, but because your beliefs and practices are no longer recognizably representative of that particular church? Just so you know, I am not talking about folks who quietly may be more conservative or liberal than the Church, but who are not bent on changing the Church in their image. But of course, the question I posed above is still always a good one for all of us to ask occasionally. I had to ask myself this when I was trying to turn my local evangelical church Catholic back in college. I was reading the Church Fathers, and wanted my local evangelical church to start looking more Catholic. Not only was I met with a brick-wall, I was trying to practice alchemy, turning something of one substance into another. I am still friends with people from this church, and still regard them as siblings in Christ, it is just that I could no longer in good faith consider myself an evangelical protestant.

As an example, it used to frustrate me beyond belief as an Anglican that John Spong would stick around and try to change the Episcopal church. To a postmodern person such as myself, he seemed like a fraud, either trying to fool himself or the whole church, or both. Rather than try to change the Christianity that millions, even billions, of people love and cherish, why could he not simply be honest, admit he had progressed way beyond the limits of traditional and Anglican Christianity, and use his talents in other places where he would be more welcomed? It is not that we are saying “get the hell out of here you heretic,” but rather asking, “do you really, truly, even belong here anymore?”

Let me put it this way: if I were the owner of a football team, and after being the owner 10 years I said, “hey we need to rethink this sport; Let’s re-line the field into a diamond, put in bases, get bats and a baseball, and call it ‘football for a new generation!’” What would the response be? Probably a large chunk of the team fans would leave (as has happened in Spong’s diocese) or others who actually did like baseball, would probably just go to a baseball game rather than my “football for a new generation.” Most honest folks would probably suggest I, as the owner, simply leave the NFL, and join Major League Baseball, not because the NFL is exclusive or mean, but because the sport my team was playing was no longer football.

This metaphor describes what Sister Joan and John Spong are up to. They are trying to change the Church to mirror secular culture. Folks who actually love the Church the way it is aren’t buying into their ideas, and are leaving areas of the Church under their control. Spong’s Newark diocese is one of the most rapidly declining dioceses in the Episcopal church, and Catholic religious orders that embrace Sr. Joan’s ideologies are barely surviving and will not be around in 10-15 years without major changes. Also, people who really appreciate and love secular culture have no need for Spong and Chittister’s views either, views which strike secularists as being a strange mix of Christianity and secular culture, and still “too Christian.” No good secularist is going to get out of bed on Sunday morning to experience warmed-over secularism and homilies about social work. So thus Sister Joan and her supporters are a dying breed, getting little support from those in charge in the Church, and even less from younger Christians, even if some activists and academics on the sidelines are supportive.

Now, I would be naive if I didn’t admit that the Church does change over time, just as football rules gradually change. Doctrine develops and unfolds and discipline evolves as new situations present themselves. However, this is different than the radical moves I, as a team owner, theoretically initiated. In the same way, one cannot compare the Church changing over time with the radical instant-change visions of Spong and Chittister.

This is why I think the honest thing for Sister Joan (and John Spong while I am at it) to do is simply admit she has moved beyond the boundaries of what it means to be Catholic, and realize that constantly being the gadfly just results in anger and bitterness at a Church who will not change instantly and in a radical direction simply because a few folks from one generation want it to.

Charismatic Episcopal Church Archbishop Randolph Sly has resigned from the International Communion of the Charismatic Episcopal Church, and will leave his Cathedral (The Cathedral Church of the Transfiguration) in Potomac Falls, Virginia in the next few months. He has stated he will become Catholic. This move is a bit of a shock to those following the recent crisis in the CEC, but others have expected it for some time. Whether Bp. Sly will eventually be allowed to be ordained in the Catholic Church is up to his local bishop.

Sly’s decision follows the highly-discussed Patriarch’s Council Meeting in the Charismatic Episcopal Church that just ended, a meeting where selected CEC leaders were expected to discuss certain issues and concerns that have been raised on this blog and our forums (among other places).

There is no word as to whether any of Sly’s clergy or laity will follow him into the Catholic Church, nor is there information available about the future actions of other CEC bishops following the meeting. However, in situations like this, one can expect some clergy and laity to follow the path of their bishop, even if shortly he will no longer be a CEC bishop, but a Catholic layperson. There are suggestions that chunks of his parish have already gone either East or West, and that some of the cathedral leadership are leaving or have left for Rome or Constantinople as well.

I have only become deeply familiar with the Charismatic Episcopal Church in the last few months, a result of a rather innocuous post I made on June 16, 2006, “What’s Up in the Charismatic Episcopal Church?” The resulting 200+ comments set a record for most comments ever on this blog, and the conversation was taken over to our forum, and over 200,000 visits later, the conversations are still continuing. Part of this is because we, by accident, became virtually the only place folks in the ICCEC could openly discuss these matters. Some of the CEC leadership have attacked our blog and forum, accusing us of encouraging attacks on the CEC. However, we have merely provided a place where curious, hurt, and wounded people can come and ask honest questions and get some honest answers about what is going on in their own church. As I have said before, we welcome more transparency on the part of CEC leadership, and our forums would shut down from lack of use in a few days if this transparency were to come about.

I know the dust is still settling from all of this, and people on all sides are angry and hurt at many CEC leaders, including Bp. Sly. I just pray that all involved in this controversy, and those formerly involved, do the right thing and confess and make amends if they have wronged anyone in these controversies. We are all called to this, but in tough times, this is especially important.

Welcome to the Catholic Church Bp. Sly, and God bless you and may we be enriched by your evangelical and charismatic roots. For those who are staying in the CEC, and for all CEC leaders, may God bless all of you as well.

[Note: I received this information from reliable sources. If anything is inaccurate, please contact me. This is all public knowledge by the way.]

I just finished making up a 2007 Catholic Liturgical Calendar. I hope you find it useful. It has a complete listing of General Calendar Feast days, the level of festivity (solemnity, etc), whether the day is a Holy Day of Obligation, and each Sunday I list the week in the 4-week Liturgy of the Hours Psalm Cycle that is supposed to be used. I understand that it looks a little complicated, but the key at the bottom should explain the symbols.

Please contact me if you notice any errors. Thanks!

I can’t believe today is the fifth anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist acts.

I remember where I was when it happened. My brother and I had just started Latin class, and some students were talking about a plane hitting a building. I thought initially that a small plane had hit a local building. However, then another girl said she thought another plane had hit a building. Now I was really confused. Soon our Latin professor came in and told us the bad news. I am pretty sure classes were dismissed soon after this, because after hearing the news nobody was in the mood to translate Latin.

For months after the event, I recall getting worried anytime I saw a plane overhead; I never realized how many planes actually flew over my apartment until after 9-11. I lived across the street from the Centers for Disease Control. I remember wondering if it would be a target. I think on 9-11 we all woke up quite a bit to the reality of the harshness of the world. Unfortunately, I think many have largely forgotten.

I also recall, being at a major university at the time, the almost immediate reaction from the radical left there. Conservatives have their fair share of silly reactions I must say, but at this university, I usually only saw the left side of things. Almost the same day of the attacks, some folks were holding up signs saying “No war,” even though there wasn’t a war yet! Some students mocked the U.S., saying we deserved it (even if our foreign policy did play a role in angering the terrorists, this is still no justification for saying that we deserved an attack that killed 1000s of civilians!). Some asked, “what’s the big deal?” Jonathan and I, not always the most patriotic individuals, put up American flag stickers around our apartment, some visible from the outside.

Where were you when the planes struck? What were your reactions? Please share.

I got approached the other day about joining the Knights of Columbus. It sounds interesting and may be a way for me to meet people around here and get involved more. The guy who told me about it emphasized that it is not just about hanging out and said to me, “It’s not about that clubhouse out back, which could burn down as far as I am concerned…I don’t even drink.” So I am guessing that the K of C have a reputation for partying!

But anyway way, I thought it sounds interesting. Any thoughts?

Here’s an example of the contorted theological cogitations that we have come to expect from the loony left. Apparently, it is now kosher for a prominent leftist Catholic writer to question the gender of Jesus. Here’s a real sidesplitter from Joan Chittister’s latest column:

Jesus became “man” we are now supposed to say — despite the fact that for centuries we said, “And the Word became “flesh” — as in human. Now, we mean what we mean. The Word became man. Male. No argument about that one. They tell us that they mean “woman,” too, when they say “man,” of course. Except not always.

Well, if we are going to doubt Jesus’s masculinity on the basis of the phrase “And the Word became flesh,” then why not question his humanity as well? After all, “flesh” isn’t just the unique property of human beings - animals have it, too. So, if Chittister’s reasoning is correct, then why should we confine the incarnation of Jesus to a human body? Is it possible that the Word became incarnate in, say, a chipmunk?

Continuing in the same vein of nonsense, Chittister says:

In the middle of the Rhine River, on the St. Lawrence Seaway, on a boat on a river in Pittsburgh, women who feel called by God to serve the people of God are being ordained beyond legitimate diocesan boundaries. Why? Because they have no other choice. There’s nothing they can do about it. They have no authority to open the theological discussion of whether or not Jesus became “man” — meaning male — or Jesus became “flesh” — meaning human — and the implications of that answer for the life and structures of the church itself.

Now Chittester claims that the wackjob feminists who performed illicit ordinations in direct defiance of their ecclesiastical superiors had “no other choice.”

Sure. Right. They were probably forced into those actions in the same sense as your average feminist is driven to consume countless cups of mocha-latte. They weren’t given no choice in the matter; they were just displaying typical moonbat* behavior, as moonbats tend to do.

* moonbat - my new favorite term for leftist nutcases.