Philippine Bishops’ Amoris Laetitia Statement Causes More 1P5 Teeth-Gnashing

Abp. Socrates B. Villegas, president of the CBCP.
(Image source: CBCP News.)

I’d really hoped to move beyond the right-wing blowback from Amoris Laetitia. Fifty-one weeks out of the fifty-two God sends, I’m able to ignore blogs like One Peter Five, Rorate Caeli, and What’s Up With Francis-Church?, content to let their writers whine and pout. However, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) issued a statement today which hath caused Steve Skojec to rend his garment:

There are a number of people who seem to keep missing this key point, the super decoder ring to the entire synod and exhortation process. Gather round, everyone, and I’ll share the secret:
To the average person — or the willing priest or bishop — it doesn’t matter that the exhortation didn’t change doctrine. If they’re given permission to ignore doctrine through “pastoral” justifications, they will.

Comments Hilary White drily, “… [For] some reason, Steve seems to be losing his s**t.” Her own contribution is a sarcastic pretense of “everything is just peachy”. Sigh; it must be difficult to avoid looking like Skojec’s mini-me.

Who’s Waiting for “Permission”?

Got news for you, Steve-o: There are plenty of Catholics out there who haven’t waited for “permission” to ignore doctrine. I would even say that they’re in the overwhelming majority. Sure, there are a few progressive Catholics, like Kate Childs Graham, who can and do quote out-of-context passages from Church documents to justify their positions. However, I’d bet my old Ad Altari Dei medal that they’re in the minority, that more are like Carol Meyer — willing to ditch doctrine with or without “permission”. And in cases like Graham’s, it’s damn near certain they’d ignore doctrine even if they couldn’t find a passage to serve as their “permission”.

To the average person — or the willing priest or bishop — it doesn’t matter what Pope Francis wrote or didn’t write. If they want to go against the teachings of the Church — if they want to commit a particular sin — they will.

Many if not most Catholics just don’t need to hide behind a subterfuge like a footnote in an absurdly long papal exhortation. Do you think 98% of American Catholic women have used contraceptives at some time in their lives because Humanae Vitae was so difficult to comprehend, because it was “tantalizingly vague”? And Humanae Vitae, although an encyclical, is a much shorter document than Amoris Laetitia; by comparison, it’s almost an inter-office memo. (Boy, I just dated myself there!) Many priests, deacons, and laypersons will never read Amoris, let alone latch onto any particular footnote, just as they’ve never actually read any of the Vatican II documents.

Did Cardinal Burke “Betray” the Rad Trads?

Image source: Shutterstock.

On Monday, the National Catholic Register published an essay by Cdl. Raymond L. Burke, Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and the darling of conservative Catholics. The essay, “‘Amoris Laetitia’ and the Constant Teaching and Practice of the Church”, has been taken by some radical traditionalists to be a slap in the face.

Cardinal Burke a “Company Man”

“This is nothing less than a betrayal by one who should have offered hope,” whined Steve Skojec into his Twitter feed. “We have been thrown to the wolves.” Hilary White, in her charmingly-titled blog What’s Up With Francis-Church?, affects an unconvincing sangfroid:

I am acquainted with Cardinal Burke, at least a little, and honestly folks, he’s a good guy but a company man to the core. In all the outrages of the last three years, he has done the same thing over and over. He has either remained silent (Lalalalala Laudato Si … I can’t heeeaaar yooooouuu!) [or …? An “either” calls for a following “or”, Hilary. What’s the alternative?][.] And, as Steve [Skojec] said above, each time he has said something publicly that has been taken by the press or anyone else as critical, he has instantly dived for the phone to backpedal as fast as he could.

John Jalsevac of Life Site News — a publication becoming more concerned with defending Catholic orthodoxy than with defending life — admits that the good Cardinal may have in fact been addressing progressives rather than conservatives. “After reading the whole of Burke’s column, it becomes strikingly clear that the primary target of Burke’s rebuke is, in fact, liberal mainstream media outlets and Catholic writers and publications, such as America Magazine and the National Catholic Reporter, who have hailed the exhortation as a welcome revolution.”

However, Jalsevac reluctantly admits that Cdl. Burke may also have intended “to warn ‘faithful’ writers of the possibility of causing scandal of their own by overstating the authority or impact of the exhortation. … [While] the cardinal is certainly technically correct that the exhortation doesn’t have the juridical authority to overturn Church teaching or formally introduce novel pastoral practices — there is no question that it has the authority to create the impression in public opinion of having changed church teaching or practice: and that may be the only kind of authority that ultimately matters.”

Donald Trump’s “Pro-Life” Masquerade—UPDATED

Donald Trump with Chris Matthews.
(Image source: NBCNews.com.)

Donald Trump’s statement that women who have abortions should be punished was not the first thing he’s said that’s caused the pro-life movement to doubt the sincerity of his conversion. If anything, it finally confirms that Trump has worn his pro-life conversion like a mask. Robert P. George comments, “Mr. Trump seems to have stumbled onto the best possible way of signaling to true pro-lifers that he is not one of them.”

The Caricature and the Truth

Of course, Trump lost very little time walking back his statement, since just about every person with an IQ over 85 on all points of the issue spectrum criticized it. Just as predictably, the pro-Clinton and pro-abort forces lost very little time capitalizing on his error, since Trump— for a brief moment and on video — had become the caricature of the pro-lifer just about every hard-core pro-abort nurtures in her most dystopian fantasies. People like Planned Parenthood Action Fund EVP Dawn Laguens are more than happy to accept Trump’s pro-life mask as his true face, because his blunt style allows them to claim that Trump is “only saying what they are really thinking”.

As we say down South: No, that’s not what we think at all, bless their hearts.

The fact is, prior to the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), none of the states criminalized women for seeking abortions; legal penalties were reserved solely to abortionists. The pro-life movement from its beginning understood that the vast majority of women who seek abortion don’t do so willingly, let alone cheerfully, and that many suffer pressure, even coercion, from others to end their pregnancy. Ironically, for all their professed concern about women, pro-aborts turn a blind eye to offenses against women’s health and intrinsic dignity whenever action against these violations threatens access to abortion. Punishing women for aborting their children is not now, has never been, and will never be, implicit in the pro-life agenda.

The Wanderer Schism and Latinism

Ann Barnhardt, All-American Schismatic.
(Image source: westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com.)

For almost fifty years, The Remnant has been the leading voice of Catholic traditionalism in America. Founded by Walter Matt, who left The Wanderer after a dispute with his co-founder brother Alphonse, it now publishes under the guidance of Matt’s son Michael. Over the last few years, especially after the election of Pope Francis, the tone of The Remnant’s articles have become increasingly shrill, denouncing “neo-Catholics” (i.e., anyone not identifiably traditionalist) and “Bergoglio” with a regularity verging on monomania.

A “Bastion of Orthodoxy” Calls For Schism

The venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once wrote, “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing.” A radical traditionalist (that is, the most extreme kind of traditionalist) differs in that, being in love with what he thinks the Church used to be, he hates what he thinks the Church has become in the wake of Vatican II. At its worst, it approaches anti-Catholic Protestantism from the right.

Wryly comments theologian John Médaille, “One would hope that a publication that claims to be a bastion of orthodoxy would not be a place to find a call for schism.” But that’s what happened: in a featured article written by Ann Barnhardt, The Remnant has called for an “Imperfect Ecumenical Council” to depose and anathematize Pope Francis as a heretic.[*] Furthermore, the call goes out to “those bishops remaining who still hold the Catholic faith” — implying, of course, that many if not most Catholic bishops don’t hold the faith, at least as Barnhardt and The Remnant define it.

Reading Around: “Pro-Life”, Education, and Scientific Proofs of God

Part of the culture of blogging is writing about other people’s writing, sometimes even copying posts and essays whole (because it’s much easier than coming up with something original!). What the heck … doesn’t hurt to say, “Hey, guys, this is what I’ve been reading recently! Take a look!”

So there are three essays I want to commend to your attention: one on the pro-life movement’s “devil’s bargain” with the Republican Party, one on American educators’ theft from students of their cultural heritage, and one on the problematic nature of proving God from science.

Distributist Review: “Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion?” by John Médaille

This article came just before I read that a Google extension is soon to be released which would change all instances of “pro-life” to “anti-choice” for those who want it. Frankly, I believe the extension would likely infringe on copyrighted material (“If I’d meant ‘anti-choice’, I’d have written ‘anti-choice’!”); right now I have neither the funds nor the interest to pursue the matter further. If pro-aborts are that desperate to maintain the illusion that they control the terms of the debate, I suppose that’s their problem.

Blocking a President’s Nomination: Historical Precedents

Robert H. Bork under fire by the Senate Judiciary Committee,
1987. (Photo: Jose R. Lopez, New York Times.)

Associate Justice Antonin G. Scalia’s body was barely on its way out of the ranch resort where he died when Republicans started a movement to block Pres. Barack Obama’s eventual nominee for the empty SCOTUS seat. 

Indeed, between the progressive celebrations (“Good riddance!” “Ding, dong, the witch is dead!”) and the indecent haste in politicking, it’s a wonder that anyone managed a moment to pay sincere respect for a man who, right or wrong, exerted tremendous influence over our nation’s jurisprudence … and whom many people thought was a likeable guy. (I find it interesting that his long friendship with his colleague, the arch-liberal AJ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was made the subject of a light opera!)

Some progressives are content to wait the Republicans out, convinced that the Democrats will win in November and that either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders will get Scalia’s place filled … in fact, some want Obama to fill the spot. However, others are not as confident, and want others on the left to start pressuring Senate Republicans to confirm whomever Obama names. To that end, various people are creating memes with distorted or bogus facts, all arguing to the idea that the Senate is somehow obligated to give Obama one more SC justice.

The Facts

Refusing to confirm a nominee, even delaying an appointment into the next presidency, isn’t a new tactic. Refusing to confirm a nominee on grounds other than his/her legal competence isn’t exactly new, either; there’s a reason why they call it “Borking”. (If you’re too young to remember, and not too lazy to look it up, Google-search “Robert H. Bork”.) Nor have Democrats been mere rubber stamps to Republican presidents’ wishes (again, see “Robert H. Bork”). Of the 151 men and women nominated to the bench since 1789, 29 were unsuccessful at least on the first try. Only 12, though, had been fully considered and rejected; the  rest were withdrawn, tabled, postponed, or nullified by circumstance.

Catholic Stand: Casting Your Vote as a Faithful Catholic

Here we are, coming into the backstretch of the quadrennial presidential election cycle. Of course, from here on out, you’re going to have your eyes and sensibilities assaulted by talking heads telling you for whom you should vote — or, at least, traducing and belittling every candidate but the ones they prefer.

Many of the talking heads are Catholics. It doesn’t follow, however, that what they advise is always fully compatible with Catholic moral and social teaching, even when the head doing the talking belongs to a bishop or priest. As American citizens, they’re entitled to their opinions; as Catholics, their opinions aren’t covered by the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium. Neither, for that matter, is mine.

I’m not here to tell you who to vote for; nor am I going to tell you how I’m voting. What I’d like to do instead is give some pointers about voting as a faithful Catholic in communion with the Holy See.

Read the rest at Catholic Stand!

The Vatican’s Chronic Case of Foot-in-Mouth Disease

Msgr. Tony Anatrella. (Image Source: Wikimedia Commons.)

The late Fr. Andrew M. Greeley once remarked that the Vatican not only doesn’t tell the left hand what the right hand is doing, it sometimes operates not knowing that coordination is required. Nowhere was that tendency more evident than in this latest kerfuffle over reporting clerical child abuse. Here, the lack of coordination has led to another episode of Vatican foot-in-mouth disease, another piece of evidence that the Vatican just doesn’t get the sex-abuse problem.

“Comply with Requirements of Law”

Prior to 2001, bishops and ordinaries weren’t required by canon law to report suspected predator priests to the local authorities. (Then again, neither were schools, Boy Scout troops, or Little League officials required by civil law to report their suspicions about any adult in their organizations.) Even after Pope St. John Paul II, at the prompting of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cdl. Joseph Ratzinger, issued the motu proprio Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela promulgating newer, faster procedures for removing said priests from the clerical state, no requirement for reporting was written into the Code of Canon Law.

However, the CDF did eventually create a “Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations”, which was posted on the Vatican website. When the SST norms were updated by the CDF in 2010, Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi referred to the Guide in his prefatory note, stating that “in the practice suggested by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith it is necessary to comply with the requirements of law in the various countries, and to do so in good time, not during or subsequent to the canonical trial.”

NARAL Twitter rant makes Doritos official snack of pro-life movement

Clueless Dad.

Two days later, the Twitterstorm NARAL Pro-Choice America touched off on Twitter hasn’t fully subsided. On the best of days, the Twitterverse is a festering compost heap of sneer, snark, and verbal bullying, occasionally broken up by links to articles. However, NARAL’s tweet concerning the Doritos commercial might have been just one more turd in the sewer had the person in charge of their social-media messaging not chosen to expose the institution’s fear of the effect of ultrasound technology on their message.

Whoever it was on the keyboard must have had a big bowl of grumpy flakes before settling down to not enjoy the show. Tweet after tweet flew from the NARAL account as the designated spitter whined humorlessly about every commercial that didn’t fit within her ideological constraints, from the Gary Busey Snickers commercial (“transphobic”) to Kevin Hart’s Hyundai commercial (“taking your daughter’s autonomy away”) to Audi’s failure to feature a single woman astronaut.

And then Doritos, for “using #antichoice tactic of humanizing fetuses & sexist tropes of dads as clueless & moms as uptight”.

To give this unknown schlimazel due credit, she did point out that the “clueless dad” trope is long past its sell-by date, though I can’t blame the mom for being uptight … after all, Clueless Dad’s messing with Johnny Unborn was causing her a bit of uterine distress. But apparently no one’s clued in the unknown schlimazel to the fact that almost all expectant mothers have an ultrasound done at some point during gestation. Heck, now it’s Baby’s First Picture.

Why I'm supposed to be writing

I apologize for the overload of vertical pronouns in the following post. However, yesterday I got a reminder of why I got into the blogging game ... or, rather, why I'm supposed to be writing. A big, fat message from God saying, "You're doing it wrong."

On Nov. 4, 2012, I published a post here exploding the elitist-left trope that people join the military because they're "too dumb to go to college". 

College tuition assistance, I wrote, has been a big draw for the military over the last forty years. You have to have a certain amount of intelligence just to be able to join; and if you don't have the intelligence, self-discipline, and self-motivation to succeed in the armed forces, you're not likely to succeed in college, either. Besides, I explained, you're not likely to have a long or prosperous military career if you don't get an advanced degree along the way — a bachelor's, if you're enlisted; a master's, if you're an officer. Some have even gone on to earn doctorates while still in uniform. The Department of Defense spends hundreds of millions of dollars per year just on paying tuition for the currently-serving, veterans, and retirees. Overall, I concluded self-righteously, the "too dumb to go to college" is long past its shelf life, and needs to be discarded.

Yesterday, I received an email from a Marine veteran:

Sir, two items:

I appreciate your post about servicemembers being well-educated, citing the example of the Grammar Marine on twitter.‎ I'm passing it along to my Marines in grad schools.

Also, thank-you for linking the Drexel University veterans' program. The VA lost my MGIB, of course, forcing me to drop out of my PhD program. Then I'd gotten nowhere with AMU‎ Admissions: It seems that an unacceptable candidate is one publishing multiple internationally-acclaimed works and achieving a GRE of 1220 *after* a major brain injury. So I have just now enquired of Drexel's online graduate school instead .... you've given me hope and, fingers crossed, a way through.

Semper Fi, my friend, and thank you for your service. Please pray for this Marine, and for all veterans facing similar difficulties.