Posts
Friday, June 15, 2012
Feast of the Sacred Heart - Office of Readings
From a work by Saint Bonaventure, bishop
With you is the source of life
Take thought now, redeemed man, and consider how great and worthy is he who hangs on the cross for you. His death brings the dead to life, but at his passing heaven and earth are plunged into mourning and hard rocks are split asunder.
It was a divine decree that permitted one of the soldiers to open his sacred side with a lance. This was done so that the Church might be formed from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death on the cross, and so that the Scripture might be fulfilled: They shall look on him whom they pierced. The blood and water which poured out at that moment were the price of our salvation. Flowing from the secret abyss of our Lord’s heart as from a fountain, this stream gave the sacraments of the Church the power to confer the life of grace, while for those already living in Christ it became a spring of living water welling up to life everlasting.
Arise, then, beloved of Christ! Imitate the dove that nests in a hole in the cliff, keeping watch at the entrance like the sparrow that finds a home. There like the turtledove hide your little ones, the fruit of your chaste love. Press your lips to the fountain, draw water from the wells of your Savior; for this is the spring flowing out of the middle of paradise, dividing into four rivers, inundating devout hearts, watering the whole earth and making it fertile.
Run with eager desire to this source of life and light, all you who are vowed to God’s service. Come, whoever you may be, and cry out to him with all the strength of your heart. “O indescribable beauty of the most high God and purest radiance of eternal light! Life that gives all life, light that is the source of every other light, preserving in everlasting splendor the myriad flames that have shone before the throne of your divinity from the dawn of time! Eternal and inaccessible fountain, clear and sweet stream flowing from a hidden spring, unseen by mortal eye! None can fathom your depths nor survey your boundaries, none can measure your breadth, nothing can sully your purity. From you flows the river which gladdens the city of God and makes us cry out with joy and thanksgiving in hymns of praise to you, for we know by our own experience that with you is the source of life, and in your light we see light.
Nuns = Modernist a.k.a. Nuns on the Run
What I mean is that the problem with the modernist nuns–and this includes all the modernist Catholics–is not the superficial problems the Vatican has identified like their being pro homosexual, pro abortion, feminist, neo pagan, pro contraception, etc. These are just the outward and visible signs of the inward and spiritual lack of grace. The real problem is far deeper than the surface issues. This post on modernism in the Church explains the problem.Read the rest here.
The real problem with modernism in the American Church is the same problem of Protestantism. The Protestant Revolution was not just about the sale of indulgences, corruption in the hierarchy and whether Henry VIII wanted a divorce. Protestantism and Modernism are both revolutionary movements. As such they blame their problems, and the problems of the whole world on the status quo, and the only way to solve the problems is to overthrow the status quo.
What is telling about Protestantism and Modernism, is that the need for revolution is deep in their genetic make up, and the lust for revolution and destruction of the status quo will never be satisfied. Witness the never ending waves of “restorationsim” within Protestantism. Every generation of Protestants feels obliged to come along and turn over what the previous generation established. It’s the same with Modernism. The need to blame someone else and overthrow the ancien regime will always be part of the Protest movement. Try as you might, you will never be able to appease these people.
You cannot appease the Protestants or Modernists because they see the world in terms of conflict. The must have an enemy, and the enemy must be the establishment. For them the establishment (by definition) must be corrupt, venal, oppressive and just plain wrong. When the establishment seems to be conciliatory, innocent of corruption, patiently open to dialogue and seeking to pacify and appease they are “only playing a game” or are “being especially devious” or are “covering up their true intentions”. Therefore Cardinal Levada is being somewhat optimistic and complimentary in saying this is a “dialogue of the deaf” it is more like a “dialogue with conspiracy theorists”.
In all of this there is the mark of the everlasting adolescent. The nuns on the run and the other modernists are like petulant teenagers who cry and stomp and slam the door when they don’t get their own way. For them the parent is always the enemy, and their identity is soon determined by their constant, self righteous, immature stance of rebellion and insolence.
The Church and Our "Religious Sisters"
Father Martin Fox at Bonfire of the Vanities has a very good post about the Vatican's Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religions (LCWR). I have addressed this topic previously in a personal light. But I think Fr. Fox covers this matter much better than I as it is addressed without hurt or emotion taking his necessarily priestly perspective. I encourage you to read it in its entirety. It begins:
This isn't a subject I want to write about--but I think it's important that I say something.
As you probably know, there have been several stories involving some sort of disagreement between Church authorities and some of our religious sisters. What's that about, you may wonder?
Well, one story has to do with a series of concerns with a group called the "Leadership Conference of Women Religious"; the other has to do with a book authored by Sister Margaret Farley. In both cases, the concerns are being expressed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith--i.e., the office in Rome that seeks to ensure that those charged with teaching the faith, do so faithfully.
So what's this about? To put it simply, some of the decisions and statements of the LCWR have, over the years, sure seemed to deviate from what we believe as Catholics. The CDF folks have cited a number of concerns, such as speakers at public events, statements about "moving beyond" the Church, and other ways that Church teaching and practice have been contradicted or called into question.
Now, of course, if the folks at the LCWR believe that's not true, they have been invited to respond. Some of their leaders just met, yesterday I believe, with officials in Rome. This has yet to work itself out completely. And it isn't just about direct challenges to the Faith, but also how these religious orders might best go forward, so that they flourish, rather than shrink--as, sadly, many of them are.
But let's not beat around the bush. This didn't come out of nowhere. There have, indeed, been very real causes for concern over many years. So serious were these concerns that in the 1990s, a group of women religious in the country sought, and received, from Rome permission to form a new leadership group to represent them--because they grew unsatisfied with the LCWR.
Now, just to be clear, the issue is not with all religious--although that's how it's being framed. My understanding is the LCWR has a membership of about 1,500--as it's name makes clear, it's made up of leaders; those leaders may, or may not, accurately reflect the views of all the thousands of women religious in this country.
By point of comparison, there are two groups that might be taken as representing priests in this country: the longer-established "National Federation of Priests Councils," based in Chicago, and the recently established, "Association of U.S. Catholic Priests." I have no particular issue with either group--but I am not a member of either one. Many of the priests of the Archdiocese are affiliated with the first group, and one of our priests is part of the leadership. If any of our priests are part of the second, I'm not aware of it. The thing is, if someone--either in Rome or elsewhere--were to find fault with either group, I might agree, or disagree, or have no opinion; but why would I take that as a criticism of me?
The other question that comes to mind is this. For those folks who are up in arms about Rome calling for changes in the LCWR, is it their position that Rome isn't allowed to exercise this oversight?
Go here to read his entire post.
Stand Up for Religious Freedom
I cannot!
I must not!
I will not!
I must not!
I will not!
Father Jeffrey Keyes' compelling speech at a religious freedom rally.
Benedict XVI -Reject a Culture Where Truth Does Not Matter
Pope Benedict XVI on Monday night met with the people of his Diocese in the Cathedral Basilica of Saint John Lateran. The annual ecclesial conference of the Diocese of Rome is discussing the Sacrament of Baptism in the Church
“Renouncing the glamour of Satan in today’s age means rejecting a culture where truth does not matter,” the Pope said, referring to a part of the Baptismal Rite.
The Holy Father began his remarks by reflecting on the fact the Baptismal formula is “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” as opposed to “on the behalf of.”
He said with Baptism, we are now in the life of the Trinity: “uniquely united to God, with a new life that belongs to God, we are immersed in God Himself.”
This being true, the Pope said this means God is not some distant reality, but “we are in God, and God is in us.”
He said we also must keep in mind that this relationship begins with God.
“Yes, my decision is necessary, but ultimately, it is an act of God within me,” he explained. “I do not decide to become a Christian. I am … chosen by God, and by saying “yes” to this action of God, I become a Christian.”
In the Baptismal Rite, the catechumen must reject Satan and all his works. Pope Benedict said this means rejecting a “culture that does not seek goodness, whose morality is only a mask, which covers confusion and destruction...that seeks only material wealth and denies God”
He said the decision of Baptism lasts for the all our lives, with its rejection of evil, even if it means sacrifices.
The Pope then pointed out that becoming a Christian is not just saying ‘no’, but also saying ‘yes’ to the truths about Christ expressed in the Creed.
Because of this, Christians are “in communion with the truth.”
“We are grateful to God who gave us this gift [of Baptism], and our challenge is to live out our post-baptismal renunciations and affirmations and always live in the great cause of God, and so live well,” he concluded.
via Vatican RadioThe Anchoress on Amanpour's Interview with LCWR/John Chittister
The Anchoress has some good comments on the interview Christiane Amanpour and Sister Joan Chittister (read LCWR). These religious sisters, er, radical feminists, are in another world - their own world. Here is a blip:
First off — this whole brouhaha re the LCWR leadership is based on an 8 page document, quickly read, and more than a quarter of it is spent quite rightly praising the work religious sisters have done. When Sister Joan gets passionate about the ministry the sisters have embraced, she is right to be passionate, but since neither she nor Amanpour mention it, it seems only fair to acknowledge that the document recognizes all of that.
The assessment worries about a “radical feminist” turn taken by the leadership of the LCWR. Amanpour asks what that could mean. Sister Joan answers by defining radical feminism, rather narrowly, I think, as a mindset of extreme separatism; an idea that menfolk were irrelevant to women in the world.
Many might argue that extreme feminism is an outlook that is suspicious of men and their motives, oriented and agendized toward promoting superior feminine sensibilities throughout the culture, among both women and men. I was amused, though, I have to admit, when right after saying that no nun, no sister would ever speak badly of men as a whole, she immediately cites the real problem as being one of radical patriarchy.
Yes, yes, I know what she “meant.” But it came off as an ironic self-contradiction.
Amanpour then characterizes Benedict’s tenure — quite unfairly, or perhaps simply in ignorance, as “no more Vatican II”.
Oh, puleeze! If only the council recommendations had been implemented as written, rather than filtered through an amorphous “Spirit of Vatican II” that brooked no opposition and sometimes sowed a great deal of confusion, perhaps as a church we would all be in better shape, now. It disappoints me that Chittister allows Amanpour to get away with it, but I suspect it’s because she does believe it to be true.
Still, I found it amusing that Chittister describes the tension within the church as being between a “medieval” absolutism — that there is only one right or wrong answer to anything (“and [the damn patriarchy will] tell you what it is”) and then makes a big song and dance about the wisdom of modern relativism. And she’s absolute about it: “The modern mind, born in the scientific age, says there are many answers to many things.”
Until, of course, we’re told “the science is settled.” Then we’re not supposed to question it. It’s just a different sort of patriarchy, I guess.
I’m sorry, but I find so much of this to be prideful boomer conceit; everything that came before us is wrong, unenlightened and stupid. As Vizzini would say, Aquinas? Augustine? Ambrose? Morons!
Chittister also allows Amanpour to get away with the easiest and laziest of arguments: these men didn’t handle the sex abuse scandals well, so they have no credibility, anyway; “it hasn’t been nuns that have been responsible,” Amanpour blubbers. It’s a subject completely irrelevant to this issue, but since Chittister allowed it — and nods in agreement — I have to call her on it; she knows perfectly well that religious orders of sisters have made huge payouts after accusations of abuse and have not always been quick to co-operate with investigations, which is a story the American press hasn’t liked to cover. The subject didn’t even belong in the interview, but once it’s broached, it’s a pretty bad moment, all around, for Amanpour who took the cheap route, for Sister Joan, who let her, and of course, the church, who may do penance for it all throughout all our lifetimes.
Amanpour then gets into the “life issues” and Sister Joan, bristles with offense and says she wants to laugh in irony, or something. She starts off fairly well, but I think she’s a bit disingenuous to say that the reason abortion is not specifically addressed by so many of the LCWR leadership is because they want to treat “everything” as a life issue, and that she doesn’t want to call social justice “social justice” because everything is a life issue.
Okay. Fair enough. But neither woman addresses what has upset Rome, which are instances — admittedly not widespread — where sisters have acted as escorts to abortion centers or suggested that abortion cannot be defined as really evil, because you know…everything is relative; marriage cannot be defined as being solely between a man and a woman because, you know…everything is relative....
Read the rest here.
Fr. Robert Barron and Dr. Scott Hahn on Biblical Interpretation and The Liturgy
Interesting conversation between Fr. Barron and Scott Hahn
