Ask Tony: Did the Pope just teach that atheists can go to heaven?—UPDATED

The short answer is "No". Not "not really"; not "not in so many words". Just "no".

In just a few months, a pattern has been set such that the ineffable Fr. John Zuhlsdorf could start a companion blog named "What Did the Pope Really Say?" and not run out of material for awhile. It seems that now a month can't go by without Papa Bergoglio saying something the Vatican has to explain or walk back. The mainstream press has cast the "progressive pope" filter in concrete, and will continue to run his impromptu remarks through it until he dies or relinquishes the Chair of Peter.

It doesn't help that Papa's words sometimes take three or four readings to get clear ... especially if you have to rely on Zenit's English translation, which is only marginally better than Babelfish. When he was elected, Marcelo González of Panorama Católico Internacional sneered, "Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how confusing it is." His unique, populist style sometimes gets in the way of his clarity of expression.

Maybe he should get his new head of the CDF, Abp. Gerhard Müller, to proofread these things. Or, there's supposed to be a rather eminent and well-respected theology professor living in retirement at the Vatican ....

Let's start with the context. Eugenio Scalfari, editor of La Repubblica and a non-believer, published three questions for the Pope, to which Francis responded in an open letter. After setting some initial ground work, Francis wrote:

It seems to me that, in the first two, what is in your heart is to understand the attitude of the Church to those who don’t share faith in Jesus. First of all, you ask me if the God of Christians forgives one who doesn’t believe and doesn’t seek the faith. Premise that — and it’s the fundamental thing — the mercy of God has no limits if one turns to him with a sincere and contrite heart; the question for one who doesn’t believe in God lies in obeying one’s conscience [bold font mine.—TL]. Sin, also for those who don’t have faith, exists when one goes against one’s conscience. To listen to and to obey it means, in fact, to decide in face of what is perceived as good or evil. And on this decision pivots the goodness or malice of our action.

The context here is not about atheism specifically, but rather about non-Christians in general. In fact, the question is closely tied with another Scalfari asked about Jews. Moreover, the question was about forgiveness, not heaven, though the two concepts are tied together. However, these distinctions were lost on the press, who proceeded to announce that Pope Francis had opened heaven to atheists, causing orthodox facepalming and Evangelical howling (as exemplified by the noted prophet and theologian Kirk Cameron, who got it wrong, too).

Catholic Stand: Tradition vs. traditionalism

The Communion song this last Sunday at the 11:30 a.m. Mass was “The Servant Song”. One might say it’s one of those Gather Hymnal songs that traditionalists point to whenever they compare the richness of the traditional Latin Mass to the relative poverty of the Novus Ordo Mass that’s been with us the last forty-odd years.

Okay, “The Servant Song” as it’s sung now is truly dreadful: with quarter notes stomping the diatonic scale on the beats, it plods along like a man flat-footing it up a sidewalk. However, I have a faint quasi-memory that at one time the melody was much more syncopated … light, sweet and inoffensive, though still too much “all about me/us” to be appropriate for worship.

So I’m a child of the 1970s. The Gather Hymnal is what I grew up with. Occasionally, though, the chorus will sing an older song, like “Lift High the Cross”, and something in me lifts up with it. And Mozart’s Requiem, though not his best work, still beats out anything by Marty Haugan.

De gustibus non est disputandum: there are times when I can really appreciate the traditionalist perspective on liturgy, especially when it comes to my first love, music. The cultural heritage of the Church is one of great aesthetic richness and beauty; when done well, the Tridentine Mass is a glorious concentrate of everything the Latin Church did right for centuries.

The great danger in traditionalism, however, is the tendency to conflate liturgical and devotional traditions with the apostolic tradition. Doctor Taylor Marshall speaks of “the [radical traditionalist] belief that Latin Mass Catholics are ‘A Team’ and Novus Ordo Catholics are ‘B Team’”, but that’s actually a bit mild: the further you move to the right, the more you run across the sentiment that Novus Ordo Catholics, or “neo-Catholics”, aren’t really Catholic at all — we’re crypto-Protestants with an idiosyncratic fondness for the pope.

Read more at Catholic Stand!

The Impractical Catholic goes on the air!—UPDATED

If you're going to be in the Louisville, Kentucky area this Thursday (9/5/13), flip your car radio to WLCR AM 1040 at 4:00 pm ET for "The Mike Janocik Show". If not, click this link to get their live feed or mobile app. Your Humble Blogger will be a guest on the show about 4:30, talking with Mike about Joseph Bottum, Dr. John Zmirak and Catholic opposition to same-sex marriage. Of course, you'll have the opportunity to call in and cuss me out (though if you do use profanity, your window of opportunity will most likely be foreshortened ... this is Catholic radio, after all). And don't be surprised if I sound like I have a permanent cold.

Ah, AM Radio. Play it, boys!

Irish whiskey steak!

One of the benefits of living just north of the 33rd parallel is year-round grilling. Theoretically you can grill year-round just about anywhere in the lower 48; in practice further north than here, especially in the Midwest and the Rocky Mountain states, Labor Day tends to see the end of the grilling season ... except for tailgate parties.

I love to grill. I'm actually a pretty good cook, though I don't think Bobby Flay is gonna challenge me to a throw-down anytime soon. (I'm still waiting on the Iron Chef battle between him and the Swedish Chef.) And I kinda-sorta follow Fr. Leo Patalinghug; I hope someday we can swap recipes for chicken adobo. So there's your Catholic connection — I do believe in the power of home cooking to bring families and friends together, to reinforce "the domestic church".

Um ... where was I? Oh yeah! Grilling! 

Because I grill pretty often, I use a lot of different marinades. In a couple of restaurants, I've come across variants of steaks marinated in a Jack Daniel's base. I've got no problems with bourbon or Tennessee sippin' whiskey, but it's not my first drink of choice. And Scotch is a horrible, blasphemous corruption. They tell me, "It's an acquired taste," which is shorthand for "It's nasty, but you get used to it." You can get used to hanging by your thumbs, too ... but why would you want to?

So, Irish whiskey it is.

RNS puts a new twist on the "liberal Pope" trope — UPDATED

From Religion News Service ... of course:

Pope Francis is unsettling – and dividing – the Catholic right

 David Gibson

(RNS) For more than three decades, the Vatican of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI operated on a version of the conservative maxim, “No enemies to the right.”
While left-wing theologians were silenced and liberal-to-moderate bishops were shunted aside in favor of hard-liners [Oh, what a give-away!], liturgical traditionalists and cultural conservatives were diligently courted and given direct access to the apostolic palace.
But in a few short months, Pope Francis has upended that dynamic, alienating many on the Catholic right by refusing to play favorites and ignoring their preferred agenda items even as he stressed the kind of social justice issues that are near and dear to progressives. [To be fair, commentariat liberals aren't the only ones who conflate political conservativism with doctrinal orthodoxy and liturgical traditionalism.]
“I’ve personally found many aspects of this papacy to be annoying, and struggled against that feeling from the beginning. I’m hardly alone in this,” Jeffrey Tucker, editor of the New Liturgical Movement blog, wrote as Francis basked in the glow of media coverage of his recent trip to Brazil. [The name of Tucker's post? "The Tedious Press Narrative of Pope Francis". That, my friends, is irony; it's as if Gibson were blindly determined to illustrate Tucker's point.]
“Every day and in every way we are being told how glorious it is that the bad old days are gone and the new good days are here,” he lamented.
Tucker and other traditionalists who are dedicated to high church rituals have been especially miffed at Francis’ simple — they might say simplistic [then again, they might not] — style since the moment the former Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was introduced to the world as the new pope back in March.
“How can I love a Pope who doesn’t even want to be Pope?” Katrina Fernandez, a popular conservative blogger, wrote in a column about her disillusionment. [Kat commented, "I'm a little flattered the author referred to me a popular blogger. Puzzled at the label 'conservative'. And annoyed that my one flipping post is being used to paint me as a pope hater."]

Katy Perry's chest can't stay out of trouble

What does a writer do when s/he doesn't have the talent to write for People but is too proud to work for the National Enquirer? The answer is obvious: S/He goes to work for the New York Post. The Post is a wanna-be British tabloid — lots of celebrities, lots of sex, lots of celebrity sex, lots of rumors denied in order to get them started.

I didn't know there was a rumor that Katy Perry was dating Robert Pattinson. I didn't know that the aforementioned Pattison had broken up with Kristen Stewart. I didn't know that Pattinson and Stewart were dating in the first place.

Yes, I do know who they are. At least, I know who Perry and Pattinson are. You get the feeling my mind's been elsewhere other than on the romantic entanglements of the young and over-publicized?

So Perry told Elle UK, "I sent [Stewart] a text message saying: 'I know you've seen all this stuff but you know I would never disrespect you. I'm not that person. I'm just trying to be a friend to him but it is unfortunate that I do have a set of tits.'" Of course. Even if Perry were a more modest person who didn't leverage her cleavage for the sake of her career, she knows that entertainers aren't allowed to have opposite-sex friendships — unless they're "friendships with benefits".

What's the Post's headline?

Katy Perry blames Robert Pattinson romance rumors on her breasts

(facepalm) Oy-oy-oy.

Anybody remember when boob meant "moron"? I don't know what's worse — that an editor would risk looking like an idiot to print an attention-grabbing headline, or that the headline does grab attention, or that it grabbed my attention enough to provoke me into writing about it.

Vanity of vanities ....

Summer fashion nonsense

Just a couple of things I noticed just this last week:

I get ads from Shoebuy.com; about the only advantage to getting these ads is not having to scour the DFW metroplex for 10½ EEE shoes, which I promise you are harder to find than a restroom along I-25 in New Mexico. The picture on the left came in with their most recent mailing.

Forget that the model doesn't look that much like Jackie O (shouldn't we be over her by now?). Note the word I underlined: "Physician endorsed"? 

Okay, I can understand doctor recommendations for footwear, because I've seen women wear shoes that must be a podiatrist's nightmare — unless you're a ballerina, there's no earthly reason your foot should be nearly perpendicular to the ground for longer than it takes to grab something out of the cupboard. But Global Glamour Fashions sells "accessories", and I don't understand why a belt or a pair of gloves should require a doctor's sign-off. Are we gonna need prescriptions for jewelry next? Let me put it another way: where's the value-add?

It's official! ... Well, almost ...

Soon-to-be Ss. John XXIII and John Paul II.

Yesterday at the Vatican, Fr. Federico Lombardi, reading from a prepared statement, announced that Pope Francis has signed and promulgated a decree approving a second miracle attributed to Bl. John Paul II. At the same time, he has also approved a vote by the Congregation for the Cause of Saints to raise Bl. John XXIII to the altars of sainthood without need of a second miracle.

Francis has also called for a consistory of the College of Cardinals to discuss further the canonization of JP2. This step isn't strictly necessary for his canonization to take place; my guess is that it's a last check to insure that he isn't declared santo too subito. As for the waiver of the second miracle in J23's case, Fr. Lombardi explained that it is "the Pope’s will that the Sainthood of the great Pope of the Second Vatican Council be recognized". There is some theological discussion over whether two miracles are really a necessary bar to hurdle; in any event, the Pope is free to set aside the rule.

No date has been set yet for the consistory, which will set the dates for the canonization ceremonies; Fr. Lombardi did not rule out a dual ceremony, and expressed confidence that both would take place by the end of the year. At the same time, the decree approves miracles by two other venerable servants, Alvaro del Portillo y Diez de Sollano and Maria Giuseppa Alhama Valera (Speranza di Gesu), recognition of four Spanish martyrs and the heroic virtue of five other candidates.

Frankly, canonizing both popes at the same time would be a brilliant step, emphasizing the hermeneutic of continuity without nailing it to anyone's forehead. I look forward to it, and I shall keep you informed.

The aftermath of Gettysburg

Robert E. Lee
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The Gettysburg campaign was the last significant invasion of the North. About a week after the battle ended, CS Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan led a cavalry raid into Indiana and Ohio to disrupt the flow of supplies to the Army of the Cumberland; beyond some bridge and railroad damage, and tying up some cavalry in chasing him, his most significant accomplishment was to get captured.

Surrender may be the logical end of defensive warfare, but it isn’t the inevitable or necessary end, as had been shown by the Romans in the Second Punic War, the Americans during the Revolution and the Communists in Vietnam. As long as Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia stayed in Virginia, they had the blessing of interior lines and intimate knowledge of the terrain, as well as friendly hosts. From that perspective, the invasion of the North wasn’t really necessary.

As well, materiel had always been the Confederates’ biggest problem. Half the size of its foe, the Army of Northern Virginia still found it necessary to augment what weapons and ammunition Richmond could send them with whatever they could capture from the Yankees. While in Pennsylvania, the ANV could live off the land. But the orchards didn’t grow bullets, and the wheat fields provided no powder. The further Lee led his army into Pennsylvania, the further his supply line was stretched and the more vulnerable it became. Eighty-one years later, Field Marshal Sir Bernard L. Montgomery would lead British and American forces on a similar push into Holland (Operation Market-Garden), which failed its objective with severe consequences for the Allied advance.

Gettysburg — Day Three

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

—Proverbs 16:18

The sun rose on 3 July 1863 to show the Army of the Potomac still occupying the high ground southeast of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.

Gettysburg, 3 July 1863
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

To many in the Army of Northern Virginia, this likely came as a surprise. CS General Robert E. Lee’s Confederates had been dominating the bluecoats since the afternoon of the first day, when they pushed the Federals south through the town. And the day before, they had definitely given the Yankees a bloody nose when they’d pushed it too far away from the high ground. By now, the previous commander, Joseph Hooker, would have retreated. So would have Irvin McDowell, or Ambrose Burnside. Heck, George B. McClellan would have boasted of the success of his brilliant retrograde movement in the face of “overwhelming force”!

But those men wouldn’t have been in the upper ranks. Leaders like Lee and his “old warhorse”, Lt. Gen. James “Pete” Longstreet, knew that they’d accomplished little besides shoving a salient in the Union left back to where they would be strongest, the tactical crest of Cemetery Hill. The bloody nose had hurt the Confederates as much, if not more, given their numerical inferiority. The Union commander, Maj. Gen. George G. Meade, didn’t have to leave his position: as long as his lines of communication were secure and his men held the most advantageous position, they could wait the rebels out.

Now would have been a good time to disengage, swing around to the south, cut the Union supply line and force Meade to give chase again. But for some reason — to the end of his life, he never explained why — Lee simply could not let go of the battle. Perhaps, as novelist Michael Shaara said in his novel The Killer Angels, he thought his men would never understand why they turned their backs and left an undefeated enemy in possession of the ground; however, they had done so once before, at Antietam a year before. I think it’s more likely that Lee, a Virginia aristocrat who was the son of a Revolutionary War hero and related to George Washington by marriage, was impatient for the battle and the war to end, and rationalized that a thumping defeat of the Army of the Potomac so far into the North would precipitate that end.