Category Archives: Canon Law

Roman Catholic Parishes Use Collection Envelopes (and their Contents) to Determine a Catholic “in good standing”!


We were recently contacted by a reader asking us for an opinion about the question of whether the Requirement of Registration in a Parish and an Affidavit of Good Standing is appropriate for fulfillment of the role of confirmation sponsor. That’s a compound question consisting of two separate questions:

  1. Is a requirement for parish registration appropriate?
  2. Is an Affidavit of Catholic in Good Standing in the parish in which one is registered appropriate?

The second question necessarily follows on the first question.

The Roman Catholic Parish of St Patrick in Ravena, NY, a parish in the territory of the Diocese of Albany, NY (Edward B. Scharfenberger, bishop) has scheduled their Confirmations for April, 2018, and just recently sponsor designates were informed that they were to provide certain certifications as to their “fitness” to fulfill the role of Confirmation sponsor. We have obtained statements from sponsor designates and a copy of the form to be signed by the sponsor designates. In general, the “contract” is rather primitive and a bit late, since it appears it should have been provided to the sponsor designate right at the start of the formation period and not 2 months before the Confirmation! In addition, it contains a number of silly requirements, one of which caught our eye:

“The sponsor agrees to provide:

+ The Church of St Patrick the name and address of the Parish and Pastor where they currently worship;

+ Further provide the Church of St Patrick with an Affidavit signed by their current pastor certifying they meet these requirements:

– At least 16 years old,

– Fully initiated into the Roman Catholic Faith through the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist.”

The grammar leaves a great deal to be desired and it’s unclear whether the certifying pastor has to be “at least 16 years old” and “fully initiated” or the sponsor. Another problem is that it is the “Church of St Patrick” while we have always thought of the Church as being the Church Jesus Christ, and the church as used in the Church of St Patrick would clearly indicate the building and not the community, the mystical body; properly stated, it should be the “Parish” of St Patrick for obvious reasons. But the document has other flaws.

It raises the question of What business does a pastor have certifying a sponsor’s age? That’s done by way of a secular birth certificate!

In addition, the current pastor must sign an affidavit confirming the sponsor’s age AND that the sponsor has received the sacraments of Baptism, Eucharist, and Confirmation, all of which are clearly proved by the respective certificates issued by the conferring parish, not necessarily by the sponsor’s territorial pastor. So we had a closer look at what’s going on here because something stinks in Ravena, and the smoke of satan is probably coming from the Albany Diocesan Offices.

Those observations are merely a further confirmation of the turmoil and confusion that reigns supreme in the Roman Catholic Church today, and are clearly visible in the parishes.[1]

First, let’s look at what the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law, the collection of rules and regulations governing what and how things are done in the Roman Catholic Church, has to say about what a “parish” is — this is an important first step because most “practicing” Catholics don’t have a clue what a parish is.

The Code of Canon Law (sections abbreviated “C.”) defines “parish” in the following terms:

515 §1. A parish is a certain community of the Christian faithful stably constituted in a particular church, whose pastoral care is entrusted to a pastor (parochus) as its proper pastor (pastor) under the authority of the diocesan bishop. [our emphasis]

And c. 518 expressly defines the parish as “territorial,” meaning,

Can. 518 As a general rule a parish is to be territorial, that is, one which includes all the Christian faithful of a certain territory. When it is expedient, however, personal parishes are to be established determined by reason of the rite, language, or nationality of the Christian faithful of some territory, or even for some other reason. [our emphasis]

Therefore, a parish is territorial. As such it embraces all the Catholics of a given region on a map. When a bishop formally erects a parish, he establishes its specific boundaries, and all Catholics residing within those limits are ipso facto (and de jure) members of that parish, whether or not they know it. Canon law does not require anyone living within the parish boundaries to take the additional step of registering at the parish. The very fact that a Catholic lives in the territory of a particular parish is enough to make him or her member of that parish. Canon law does not require formal registration in that parish to be a member of that particular parish. Question 1 is thus moot. A dead issue. No registration is required.

The fact that parishes are by definition territorial does not mean that it is illegal under Canon Law or wrong to require people to register; it may be useful to ask them to register in their parishes for administrative reasons, such as for example, census purposes or for surveys, or for demographic purposes.

In the American Catholic Church the parish registration system has been superimposed on top of Canon Law, but parish registration is not a part or provision of Canon Law. In fact, the parish registration system must never be used in such a way as to contradict Canon Law; if there is a conflict, Canon Law must take precedence. This includes the situation where a local bishop, called the local ordinary, or his staff makes up some “local” law or rule for the diocese; that local rule cannot replace Canon Law or contradict it. Period.

But the question posed is Confirmation Sponsors. On the question of parish registration as regards confirmation sponsors, The purpose of c. 892 and its requirements are merely to make clear that the sponsor of the confirmed person is to ensure that the confirmed behaves as a true witness of Christ and faithfully fulfills the obligations inherent in this sacrament. That should be no problem in theory, but let’s move on.

In the Roman Catholic Church the requirements to be a Confirmation sponsor are the same as those for a Baptismal godparent. As regards the requirements for a person to fulfill the function of confirmation sponsor c. 893 refers back to c. 874 which lays down functions for fulfilling the function of a baptismal godparent, that is, the requirements for fulfilling the role of confirmation sponsor are the same as for a baptismal godparent. According to Roman Catholic Canon law, the requirements for both a Baptismal godparent and a Confirmation sponsor are:

Can.  874 §1. To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor a person must:

1/ be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this function;

2/ have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has granted an exception for a just cause;

3/ be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in keeping with the function to be taken on;

4/ not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;

5/ not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.

In other words, the person chosen by the candidate for confirmation or the candidate’s parents, or both, must be someone who takes his or her Catholic faith seriously enough that s/he may serve as a mentor for the person to be confirmed. In essence, the first requirement then, is the trust and confidence of the candidate and his/her parents that operate in determining the fitness of a person to be sponsor. To abrogate that authority or to demean the capability of the candidate or his/her parents to determine suitability in practical terms would be an affront.

The way records are kept.

Canon Law makes no statement, provision or requirement that the proposed sponsor be formally registered in a parish, nor does relevant Canon Law set forth any criteria or system for determining fitness in terms other than that the sponsor designate be a witness of Christ and a capable mentor. Nor does Canon Law lay down a protocol on how that s/he be examined for his/her fitness to be a confirmation sponsor, but merely states to the effect that the person takes his/her Catholic faith seriously and can be a mentor for the candidate.

Scott VanDerveer, pastor of St Patrick, Ravena.

Steven Matthews, pastor, St John Baptist, Greenville.

Since the Code of Canon Law nowhere mentions parish registration, and certainly does not state or even imply anywhere that a sponsor in sacramental Confirmation must be registered at a particular parish, such requirement is being made an obstacle is canonically illicit and unlawful. In other words, the territorial parish of St Patrick Roman Catholic Church, Ravena, NY (Scott VanDerveer, pastor) is wrong to require an Affidavit of Parish Registration and the Parish of St John the Baptist Roman Catholic Church, Greenville, NY  (Steven Matthews, pastor) in Greenville is wrong to deny the sponsor designate a letter testifying to the fact that the sponsor designate is a member of the territorial parish of St John the Baptist Roman Catholic Church. If the sponsor designate lives in the territory of St John the Baptist parish, that person, if Catholic is a member of that parish.

While the Code of Canon Law expressly indicates that a Confirmation sponsor must be a committed Catholic, it does not provide a hint of guidance how this is to supposed to be determined, much less proved. This raises the question whether the territorial parish of St John the Baptist RC in Greenville or the territorial parish of St Patrick RC in Ravena have in place a consistent and reliable system to decide who is a suitable sponsor, and how to document that assessment. For the criteria used to test the quality of Catholics, we have to turn to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, and to the so-called Precepts. But those so-called Precepts do not possess the quality of law and are extremely difficult if not impossible to verify (the link below).

The Precepts are a classic example of unenforceable control but the gremlin gatekeepers, the so called “Faith Education” directors use them like swords, but without Church authority or common sense to understand them.

We have to ask: Do the concerned pastors know each of their flock by name and do they have intimate knowledge of what their parishioners’ lifestyle and characters are? Or can we better presume that the candidate and his or her parents are better able to make that assessment? Does the fact that someone appears every Sunday at liturgy make him or her good Catholic, and thus a better sponsor than one who does not? Or is the measure one of the magnanimity of financial contributions to the parish, or the fact that both time and treasure are determinants? Can the pastor even recognize the person by sight? Would those be applicable objective criteria to satisfy the requirement that the person takes his/her Catholic faith seriously and can be a mentor for the confirmation candidate?

Again, an example from the Cathedral Church of St Patrick (Charlotte, NC). Explicit statement that collection envelopes are used to document attendance.

Figuratively speaking, this problem can be restated in hypothetical terms as, “Is the use of collection envelopes the final arbiter of whether a person is a Catholic “in good standing” and competent to serve as a confirmation sponsor?” But that’s not even a hypothetical situation! Many parishes are using collection envelopes to decide whether or not a “practicing Catholic” is a “Catholic in good standing!”

The criterion for Catholic “in good standing”?

Here’s a depraved, reprehensible and embarrassing excerpt from the BAPTISM AND/OR CONFIRMATION SPONSOR GUIDELINES of the Cathedral Church of Saint Patrick (Charlotte, NC), which is by no means uncommon and is representative of many American parishes, in that St Patrick’s makes a number of illicit and illegal requirements:[2]

The sponsor is required to certify this information (St Patrick parish, Charlotte, NC).

and the sponsor’s parish pastor must certify

Do these administrators and pastors know their Canon Law or are they arbitrarily applying a personal interpretation of the phrase, “in good standing?” This has been known to happen all too frequently and with tragic results.

Furthermore, while we know that well-meaning Catholics may work long hours in parish offices and programs for low or no pay, and their “dedication” is commendable, they do play a critical role in the life of a typical parish but – and that’s a really big “but” because they do not hold ecclesial office pursuant to c. 145, they are not accorded by law any spiritual authority over other members of the parish.[3]

The bottom line is that the pastor is the person ultimately responsible for the spiritual well-being of his parishioners, and as Canon Law states, parishes are territorial and all Catholics in that territory are “parishioners” under the terms of Canon Law. Therefore, the pastor is responsible for the canonical, pastoral, spiritual well-being of his parishioners. If he is unaware of a problem or a situation that can transfigure into a problem, it is important that he be informed about it, and that he deal with it appropriately. By respectfully calling the pastor’s attention to such an issue, the whole parish, diocese and certainly the whole Church ultimately benefits.[4]

Figuratively speaking, this problem can be restated in hypothetical terms as, “Is the use of collection envelopes the final arbiter of whether a person is a Catholic “in good standing” and competent to serve as a confirmation sponsor?”

The answer is administratively maybe, canonically NO!

Unless the lay administrators of the Parish of St Patrick have an established system approved by competent authority for determining membership in the territorial parishes of St Patrick or of St John the Baptist, the requirement of certifying membership in any parish is served canonically by the mere provision of proof of domicile, said domicile being situated in the territory of a given parish ipso facto and de jure establishes the person as a member of that territorial parish. Canon law takes precedence over local law in the event of ambiguity, vagueness, over-broadness or arbitrariness of the local provision.

RC Diocese of Albany chief rulemaker, Scharfenberger.

In terms of the fact of “in good standing,” unless specifically stated in clear and unambiguous terms How? in practical and objective terms a pastor is to determine “good standing,” and which criteria are to be applied for such determination, as well as the specificity and reliability of such criteria when applied to an ever-changing and practically protean population of a territorial parish, made even more difficult by the mobility of today’s populations, the arbiter in the first instance must be those who are intimately familiar with the character of the sponsor designate; in the second instance, testimony or reference or direct observation my be called upon to further confirm fitness. Otherwise, any claim to system or protocol that may be proffered by pastor or lay administrator is subject to scrutiny, and likely to be found insufficient, if not illicit or even canonically unlawful.

It is our determination that the territorial parish does not have the canonical authority to require registration of persons as members of a parish, that in virtue of their residing within the territory of a given parish makes them de jure members of that parish and entitled to a letter confirming that fact, providing that they can give a showing of having been validly and licitly baptized into the Church.

As established at c. 874 §1 (CCL) the requirements for acting as a confirmation sponsor are also set forth by canon law, that is, the sponsor designate must be baptized, have received the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, and have been confirmed pursuant the terms and conditions of Canon Law. Furthermore, the sponsor designate shall be 16 years old or older, shall not be not be bound by any canonical penalty, and shall not be the father or the mother of the person to be confirmed. The law also requires that the person shall lead a life of faith but does not provide specifics.

How do you score? Do you know how to score? Are you a “Catholic in Good Standing?

Catholic “in good standing.” There then arises the question of what is meant by a Catholic in good standing. It is generally purported that a so-called Catholic in good standing is a baptized Catholic who claims to live by the Precepts of the Roman Catholic Church as promulgated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which derived presumably from the statements expressed or implied in §§ 2041-2043 of the said Catechism. The observation, however, obtains that monitoring those “precepts” for each parishioner is at best daunting if not entirely impossible.[5] Furthermore, even if the precepts were verifiable in any credible way, keeping those precepts would be a question of Pharisee vs tax collector (Lk 18:9-14), demonstrating more technique than disposition (inner forum).

Either the pastor or his administrators would have to take a Sunday mass, reconciliation, Eucharist attendance, and would have to have some method of verifying ascetic practices as well. Some parishes have inaugurated a control of collection envelopes to keep tabs on their flocks but not everyone chooses to use collection envelopes and many simply drop cash into the collection baskets. Most persons today would object to such monitoring and auditing practices.

External observation and compliance do not testify to inner holiness by any means and one would benefit by keeping in mind the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, while admitting that the majority in the pews are Pharisees or at best ignorant of anything approximating the so-called “precepts.” Moreover, it is flies in the face of reason to even suggest that the majority of Catholics today qualify even in one or two of the precepts; accordingly, the majority, though living moral and ethical lives, would be rejected by the Church as being “in good standing.” So, the reasonable conclusion is that the term “in good standing” is not verifiable in reliable objective terms, and that such verification would necessarily have to resort to a creation of an exclusivist, verifiable class of individuals within any parish, perpetuating an already excessively technical and legalistic hierarchical and paternalistic institution that has had its well-earned share of criticism and condemnation, and has tragically resulted in the hemorrhaging of the faithful from an ailing Church. The term “in good standing” is a farce and should be abandoned post haste.

 

The Precepts used to determine a Catholic in good standing are taken from the RC Catechism. The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church is “a text which contains the fundamental Christian truths formulated in a way that facilitates their understanding” and is “a ‘point of reference’ for bishops, priests, catechists, teachers, preachers, scholars, students and authors.”   The RC Catechism contains doctrine (teachings of the Church) doctrine and some dogma (universal truths of the Church) but in itself is not dogma![6]

Furthermore, the USCCB notes that:

“By its very nature, a catechism presents the fundamental truths of the faith which have already been communicated and defined. Because the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine in a complete yet summary way, it naturally contains the infallible doctrinal definitions of the popes and ecumenical councils in the history of the Church. It also presents teaching which has not been communicated and defined in these most solemn forms.” (17)

The Catechism is a resource book and may be difficult for the “people in the pews,” to understand. According to the bishops’ statement:

“It would be helpful if the reader had some theological background, but the Catechism itself presents a considerable amount of theological background material.”[7]

Most lay ministers and parish administrators do not have theological or pastoral training; it is also true that putting important decisions in the hands of amateurs is a very slippery slope. Add to that the power dynamics and the political and social forces that are prominent in parishes and we have a very hazardous situation indeed.

Any guidelines or protocols existing in a particular parish must, of course, comply with Canon Law, as must any local law, and must be applicable uniformly and impartially to any given situation, including that of confirmation sponsor. The local ordinary (the bishop) and then his presbyter pastor are the ultimate authorities for determining such guidelines and protocols which clearly do not fall within the purview of persons not having canonical authority to promulgate or to interpret such guidelines or protocols.

If a question or problem should arise with regard to the provisions of canon law or to local laws, guidelines, or rules licitly, lawfully, and validly promulgated and ratified, such question or problem should be consigned to the parish pastor in the first instance for resolution. Pursuant to c. 145 and c. 519, lay persons or lay administrators do not have canonical authority in such spiritual matters.

The pastoral, spiritual, administrative procedures in the individual locales use to interview, screen, assess, guide, instruct, mentor, or otherwise prepare sponsor designates for their role as sponsor is beyond the question posed, and are thus beyond the scope of this opinion. That statement notwithstanding, the fact that they are beyond the scope of this opinion does not in any way detract from their importance nor from the responsibility of the parochial ecclesial officers to ensure that such procedures are in place and are implemented objectively and impartially, and that the associated lay ministers and administrators are adequately discerned, formed and mentored to ensure the well-being of confirmation candidates and their sponsor designates.

And the result is bad disciples!

Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany Bishop Edward Scharfenberger demonstrating poverty. Moral poverty? The theatrical and ostentatious costume is a bit over the top for our tastes. Whom does he think he’s fooling, anyway? And then they wonder why they have scandals…

 

Please click on this link to read the original opinion on which this article is based: Responsum ad Dubium re Confirmation Sponsor.


Notes

[1] The parish of St Patrick in Ravena has a number of problems not the least of which is their website which is an indicator of the lack of professionalism and care that one would expect. For example, there is a page entitled “We have come such a long way in a relatively short period of time!  Take a look at our History! / St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic Parish began as a mission church in 1859 where the Church overlooked the Hudson River in Coeymans.  In 1917 it was rebuilt at it’s [sic] current site on Main St in Ravena / So who were our Pastors?” That page shows a series of images of a man’s headshot; apparently all the pastors were look alike clones. The Hudson River is not all that the parish of St Patrick in Ravena overlooked. Maybe pastor Scott VanDerveer should spend some time checking his minions’ work and grammar. It’s an embarrassment.

[2] Isn’t it an interesting coincidence that the local parish of St Patrick in Ravena, NY, should share the same deficiencies as the parish of the same name, St Patrick, in Charlotte, NC? What does that tell you?

[3] Can. 145 §1. An ecclesiastical office is any function constituted in a stable manner by divine or ecclesiastical ordinance to be exercised for a spiritual purpose. Further, at  §2., the Code states “The obligations and rights proper to individual ecclesiastical offices are defined either in the law by which the office is constituted or in the decree of the competent authority by which the office is at the same time constituted and conferred.”

 

[4] C. 519 The pastor (parochus) is the proper pastor (pastor) of the parish entrusted to him, exercising the pastoral care of the community committed to him under the authority of the diocesan bishop in whose ministry of Christ he has been called to share, so that for that same community he carries out the functions of teaching, sanctifying, and governing, also with the cooperation of other presbyters or deacons and with the assistance of lay members of the Christian faithful, according to the norm of law. [emphasis provided]

[5] Appendix I, Catholic Catechism, Precepts

[6] United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), “Frequently Asked Questions about the Catechism of the Catholic Church” (http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.cfm last accessed on February

[7] Having made that statement, I would like to ask the bishops Who is to decide or determine what is what in the Catechism? Without formation and training it is a hopeless task for the lay person to discern what is doctrine, what is dogma, what is theology, etc. The whole statement is a collection of ecclesial double-talk!

Advertisements

Dissolving our Dead. When will the greed-fed insanity end?!?


Dissolve and Flush: Funeralized Alkaline Hydrolysis.

The Newest Technology for Disposing of Dead Human Beings.

Excerpt from the article by

Rev. Ch. Harold W. Vadney, BA, [MA], MDiv
Interfaith Bereavement Chaplain/Thanatologist


In the West, interment, inhumation, entombment have been the traditional  methods of disposing of dead human bodies, that is, prior to the late 19th century with the revival of cremation as an alternative. Until about 1880, cremation was anathema, unless, occasionally, at times of extraordinarily large numbers or dead, such as during war time, during epidemics, or following natural disasters, mass graves or incineration of the corpses was preferred to avoid further catastrophe in terms of public health. Fire cremation was revived in the West as a quasi-pagan option attributed to non-Christian freethinkers and masons or simply to anti-social elements but then took a different tack by appealing to the public health and environmentally conscious elements in conventional society. Today, economic concerns both consumer and industrial take precedence. The dominant market economies in the industrialized West, particularly in the USA, UK, and some Western European countries, as well as the insatiable appetite of post-modern, post-Christian cultures for novelty and individualism, have left the door ajar for the entry into the funeralization professions of an industrialized process called alkaline hydrolysis (AH), an industrial process invented in the late 19th century as a way of dissolving in strong chemicals farm animal waste for use as fertilizer.[1]


“Omnes homines terra et cinis” Sirach 12:32

In a particularly beautiful description of how the pre-Vatican II Church thought of the human being, and in poetry that was possible only in a more sensitive epoch of human history, one reads:[2]

“The old Church holds on to her dead with eternal affection. The dead body is the body of her child. It is sacred flesh. It has been the temple of a regenerated soul. She blessed it in baptism, poured the saving waters on its head, anointed it with holy oil on breast and back, put the blessed salt on its lips, and touched its nose and ears in benediction when it was only the flesh of a babe; and then, in growing youth, reconsecrated it by confirmation; and, before its dissolution in death, she again blessed and sanctified its organs, its hands and its feet, as well as its more important members. Even after death she blesses it with holy water, and incenses it before her altar, amid the solemnity of the great sacrifice of the New Law, and surrounded by mourners who rejoice even in their tears, for they believe in the communion of saints, and are united in prayer with the dead happy in heaven, as well as with those who are temporarily suffering in purgatory. The old Church, the kind old mother of regenerated humanity, follows the dead body of her child into the very grave. She will not throw it into the common ditch, or into unhallowed ground; no, it is the flesh of her son. She sanctifies and jealously guards from desecration the spot where it is to rest until the final resurrection; and day by day, until the end of the world, she thinks of her dead, and prays for them at every Mass that is celebrated; for, even amid the joys of Easter and of Christmas, the memento for the dead is never omitted from the Canon. She even holds annually a solemn feast of the dead, the day after “All Saints,” in November, when the melancholy days are on the wane, the saddest of the year, and the fallen leaves and chilly blasts presage the season of nature’s death.”[3]

 

The Church of bygone days frequently used prose poetically and quoted liberally from the Church Fathers and even from the ancient philosophers and historiographers like Plato, Seneca, Socrates, Cicero many of whom, though pre-Christian, did not eschew the notion of the immortal soul.  St Augustine writes, “We should not despise nor reject the bodies of the dead; especially we should respect the corpses of the just and the faithful, which the Spirit hath piously used as instruments and vessels in the doing of good works…for those bodies are not mere ornaments but pertain to the very nature of humankind.”[4]

Cremation made an occasional appearance in isolated periods of Western history or in outlier regions where Christianity had not yet attained dominance; cremation was largely associated with non-Christian, pagan cultures.

In the East, in places where Hinduism and Buddhism had a firm foothold, cremation was and continues to be the norm. In some geographical areas such as in parts of Tibet, where the ground is unfavorable to interment and wood is a scarce and valuable resource, exposure of the corpse or dismemberment of the corpse and consumption by carrion-eating birds, so-called sky-burial or, in its form where the dismembered corpse is cast into a fiver for consumption by fishes, water burial, is practiced.

A similar practice of exposure is found in Zoroastrian communities in Iran, in the so-called towers of silence or dakhma, where the dead are brought, exposed, and consumed by vultures; the skeletal remains are then later collected for disposal.

While isolated instances of cremation are reported both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, burial or entombment was conspicuously the norm. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, burning of a corpse was a final act of abomination, reserved for only the worst elements of society.

One of the common misapprehensions of the Church’s aversion to or discouragement of incineration of the human body as a routinely available option for final disposal is that it was associated with pagan or freethinker practice, or with attempts to dissuade believers from faith in a bodily resurrection. While this might have some historical substance and may be represented by some early writers, it is but a minor hypothesis.

Ancient flame cremation practiced by the ancients.

As Eusebius describes early Christian aversion to flame cremation in a statement that still holds plausible, “” they (the Pagans) did this (cremated) to show that they could conquer God and destroy the resurrection of the bodies, saying, now let us see if they will arise.” In other words, cremation was a challenge to the belief in bodily resurrection as taught and believed in the early Church.

Furthermore, no less a figure than Cicero advances the notion that incineration was of ancient practice in Rome, and suggests that inhumation was a practice that predated the Roman practice of cremation. In fact, some noble Roman families never permitted their bodies to be burned, and Sulla is said to have been the first Roman who ordered his body to be cremated after death, lest his bones should be scattered by his enemies.[5] The pontiffs of pagan Rome would not acknowledge a funeral to be complete unless at least a single bone cut off from the corpse, or rescued from the flames, had been de posited in the earth.

Ancient Greece and Rome did practice cremation at various points in their histories but the ultimate disposal of the remains continued to be burial; either a part not consumed by the flames or the “bones” of the cremated corpse were ultimately buried in the earth. Cremation was by no means consistently the norm or the preferred method of disposal in Greece or in Rome.

Pope Boniface VIII forbade all violent modes of disposing of the dead as savoring of barbarism. “The respect due to the human body requires that it should be allowed to decay naturally, without having recourse to any violent system;” so says Grandclaude. A forcible argument against cremation is also found in the Catholic custom of preserving and honoring the relics of the Saints and putting their bodies or portions of them in the altar. It would be no longer possible to have the most important relics of future Saints if their flesh were to be consumed by fire.

That brief sampling of ancient teachings and beliefs regarding the question of incineration of human remains, arguably a “violent system” of disposing of human remains, should suffice to provide a background for the remainder of this discussion. For a more detailed discussion, I refer the reader to the Reverend Bann’s article cited above.

It was only in the late 19th century that a cremation movement came into being, and then only owing to the deplorable conditions in the cities which were rapidly outgrowing their boundaries due to immigration from rural areas, and the resulting encroachments on the previously outlying churchyards and, with population growth and densification, poor sanitation, and high mortality rates, consequent overfilling of existing cemeteries literally to the point of overflowing.

The urban slums of the Industrial Age.

Such were the conditions that gave rise to the public health concerns of reformers who claimed that the dead in the cemeteries were evil, that their miasmas leached out into the water and the spaces of the living, causing disease, suffering, and death. It was the evil dead rotting in the earth and their juices that were public health enemy No. 1. The open sewers and living conditions of the larger cities, and the putrid waters of the rivers flowing through them, of course, were not to blame.

And so, an alternative method of disposal of the dangerous and filthy dead had to be found, one that did not threaten to gobble up valuable real estate, and one that could be justified in the face of Church and religious objections. Cremation was the most obvious answer for purifying the unclean corpses. After all, since time immemorial fire was the great purifier.

In the beginning, therefore, the initial impetus was the miasma theory of pestilence, and corpses were to blame. Then, around 1880, the germ theory of disease was born. It debunked the established miasma theory of disease, and stated that disease was caused by specific organisms, germs. No problem for the cremationists, who were quite agile in dropping the miasma theory and accepting the germ theory but corpses were not yet off the hook, so to speak.

If germs were the cause of many of the diseases afflicting the population, wouldn’t the putrid rotting corpse be germ heaven? And if you have all those corpses lying about doing nothing but what corpses do, that is, rotting and defiling the air with the aromas of putrecine and cadaverine. Those same rotting corpses were breeding grounds for pestilence and a simple hole in the ground was not very likely to contain the little vermin. Cremation, the great sterilizer, would be the cremationists’ next slogan. But it didn’t last long.

The interests of the economic-minded would carry the day both in terms of the environment and the economy, and that campaign agenda is with us to this day. Basically, the dirge goes: “Why allocate so much valuable land to the dead when the living can profit by it?” Land for the living! After all, as corporations like StoneMor can confirm, cemetery real estate and the real estate occupied by the cemeteries represents a vast fortune. Someone has to tap into it.

The countries of Europe afflicted with the spirit of rationalism had no problem dealing with cemeteries; they just overruled the Church and legislated that the state had ultimate control of the citizen in life and in death. The Church could fall back on canon law but ultimately had to acquiesce to the state’s overwhelming power, and so the cemeteries were secularized. Once secularized they were emptied and their occupants relegated to ossuaries or catacombs en masse, and anonymous in their tens, even hundreds of thousands. In many instances, their eviction from the cemeteries and relocation to the quarries was done under cover of night, in order not to offend the living or present an obstacle to commerce.

France was one of the first Western nations to desecrate consecrated ground and defile the dead.

In countries where the Church, Roman Catholic or mainstream Protestant dominated, the faithful were expected under established sanctions, to obey the doctrines of their faith. For most mainstream Christians, and for all Orthodox Jews and Muslims, cremation was an abomination, and burial in the earth or entombment were the only acceptable methods of sepulture. And so it remained until 1963, when the Roman Catholic Church relieved it’s ban on cremation and, while not encouraging cremation, did not censure those who opted for incineration as their preferred method of disposal. Upto then, those choosing cremation were pro forma classified as apostates, atheists, pagans, free-thinkers, or Masons.

The 1960’s was a decade of revolutionary reform in practically every aspect of life: politics, religion, morals, education, all of which ultimately found expression in attitudes towards life, death, dying and after-death.

Alkaline hydrolysis (AH)[6], aquamation[7], resomation[8], biocremation[9], call it whatever you like it all literally boils down [no pun intended] to taking a dead human body, placing it into a pressure cooker, adding water and chemicals, heating, cooking, draining, rinsing. The dissolved flesh and organic matter is then flushing into the sewer system. What is left is bones and any metallic or synthetic material in the body (artificial joints, pacemakers, sutures, etc.). The metal such as artificial joints etc. will be recycled or “repurposed.”  The bones will be dried and ground up into a sandlike powder and returned to the family or otherwise disposed of.

The actual patented process, alkaline hydrolysis (AH) is a process developed for waste disposal. “Waste disposal” is the actual term used in the patents. AH was developed for disposal of infectious or hazardous waste by dissolving it into a “safe and sanitary” end-product. In fact, the actual wording of one of the patents is: “it is an object of this invention to provide a system and method for safely treating and disposing of waste matter containing undesirable elements, such as infectious, biohazardous, hazardous, or radioactive elements or agents.”

AH was developed for dissolving, liquefying organic matter into a disposable liquid that can be recycled as a fertilizer or simply flushed down the drain. It’s actually a technology that was developed in the late 19th century for disposing of animal waste, and which was developed in the mid-20th century for disposal of farm slaughter waste and for elimination of medical school cadavers, is now being promoted as the new eco-friendly take on cremation. Alkaline hydrolysis a.k.a. water cremation a.k.a. biocremation —  in reality just using a Draino®-like chemical to dissolve the dead human body and flush the remaining human sludge down the drain into the public sewer system — is the new rage in technology. Some funeral homes in about 14 states, where the process is now legal in the United States are now offering it as an alternative to cremation. It’s disgusting and will be a hard sell, since it will be acceptable only to the really bizarre element out there. I hope to clarify some of the issues in this article.

 

 

This is not how human beings should be treating their dead.

Download the complete article here:
Dissolve and Flush_article draft


Notes

[1] See also History of Alkaline Hydrolysis by Joseph Wilson. Wilson is the chief executive officer of Bio-Response Solutions, one of the first companies involved in the industrialization and marketing of alkaline hydrolysis for the disposition of human bodies. Joseph H. Wilson, The History of Alkaline Hydrolysis, e-pub, September 2013, 3, http://www.goodfuneralguide.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/History-of-Alkaline-Hydrolysis.pdf last accessed on October 29, 2017). The original patent filed by A.H. Hobson, U.S. Patent No. 394982 (1888), describes the process as a “… process of treating bones, which consists in digesting the bones in an alkaline solution in the presence of heat, then separating and concentrating the solution, thereby forming glue, gelatine, or size, in then digesting the remaining hone in a strong alkaline solution, so as to completely dissolve the remaining nitrogenous matter, and bring-the same into a more readily assimilable form…” (Claim 2), and as “certain new and useful improvements in the treatment of bones and animal waste or refuse generally for the purpose of rendering the same more suited for fertilizing purposes, and for obtaining gelatine, glue, and size…” (https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US394982.pdf last accessed on October 28, 2017).

[2] By way of precluding any possible suggestion of supercessionism, I would like to state from the outset that I am citing Roman Catholic writers in much of this discussion not because I am so biased but because I would rather use as my foundation a more systematized, mature, and stringent authority, which, if necessary can be attenuated or mollified mutatis mutandi in further arguments, rather than a more loose, liberal, or permissive approach as represented by the more progressive Protestant or post-Christian denominations. Although I practice as an interfaith chaplain, I am steeped in a more classical tradition than many of my contemporaries, and I ask that my readers take that subjective proclivity into consideration when reading my statements.

[3] Brann, Rev. H.A., DD, “Christian Burial and Cremation.” American Catholic Quarterly Review, Vol. X (Jan-Oct 1885). Philadelphia: Hardy & Mahony. p. 679. Reverend Brann provides a rather comprehensive background and discussion of Roman Catholic sources and thinking on cremation, which, in my reading, is remarkable in its tolerance, given the sociopolitical climate in which it was written (1885-6).

[4] De Civ. Dei Cap. XIII, p. 27, Vol. 41, Migne’s Patrologia.

[5] Desecration by scattering of one’s bones appears to be a thread running through much of ancient human history. Compare Sulla’s concern with the Biblical account (I Kings 31:12) of the incineration of the bodies of Saul and his sons to prevent desecration by the Philistines.

[6] US Patents 5,332,532, 6,437,211, 6,472,580, 7,183,453, 7,829,755, and U.S. Patent No. 7,910,788 (method).

[7] “Aquamation: A Greener Alternative to Cremation?” By Marina Kamenev/Sydney, Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2010 (http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2022206,00.html, last accessed on October 28, 2017)

[8] “Innovation in sustainable end of life choices” the slogan of the Scottish company Resomation®(http://resomation.com/, last accessed on October 28, 2017).

[9] “Biocremation. A Natural Choice.” (http://biocremationinfo.com/consumers/what-is-bio-cremation, last accessed on October 28, 2017)


Message to Kirsten Gillibrand: Stop sending the message enabling personal depravity!


Republished with Permission, unedited, from the Smalbany Blog.

The opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily represent those of this blog; we do, however, appreciate the underlying principle of the author and his/her condemnation of Gillibrand’s fundamental evil and hypocrisy.

We have done our usual fact checking and find that the quotes and the emails are factual, as are the definitions and other references cited by the article’s author.


In our recent article, Kirsten Gillibrand is a Spammer, in which we blast the biatch for her onslaught of incessant bitching emails we were, and still are, finding in our e-mailbox, we suggested that “it’s election time” and that Gillibrand, like a cockroach, has come out of the woodwork. We were right, as most of you already know, she’s revving up her hormones for the 2018 election.

It’s disgusting how careless and stupid Kirsten Gillibrand can be. She doesn’t even know the difference between contraception and birth control; they’re very, very different, Ms Senator from New York. You have so much to say about the subject and women’s rights to make decisions about their bodies but you don’t even know what you’re talking about. What’s even more tragic and disgusting is that most of the women you’re talking about don’t know either! We are in favor and wholly support informed decision making. Unlike you, Ms Gillibrand!

We’d like to help educate our U.S. Senator from New York, the alleged woman, Kirsten Gillibrand. Here are some basic definitions you should learn, Ms Gillibrand:

Basically, contraception is technically “birth control” because if you prevent preventing the male’s sperm from meeting with the female’s egg you prevent pregnancy. No pregnancy, no birth. Contraception prevents pregnancy by interfering with the normal process of ovulation, fertilization, and implantation. There are different kinds of birth control that act at different points in the process, including: moral decision making ability, abstinence, the “pill”, condoms, diaphragm, IUDs, Norplant, tubal sterilization, spermicides, vasectomy.Basically, contraception is technically “birth control” because if you prevent preventing the male’s sperm from meeting with the female’s egg you prevent pregnancy. No pregnancy, no birth. Contraception prevents pregnancy by interfering with the normal process of ovulation, fertilization, and implantation. There are different kinds of birth control that act at different points in the process, including: moral decision making ability, abstinence, the “pill”, condoms, diaphragm, IUDs, Norplant, tubal sterilization, spermicides, vasectomy.

Birth control is more specifically defined as control of the number of children born especially by preventing or lessening the frequency of conception, preventing gestation (contragestation) or pregnancy after the egg and sperm meet, or the various forms of abortion. Generally technically, birth control is preventing the fetus from being born by killing it at some stage in its development, up to and even after it is full-term and partially out of the womb!

Is Kirsten Gillibrand a man in drag?
Gillibrand doesn’t respect women; she just want’s a cheap vote.

On October 8, 2017, Kirsten Gilibrand proves she’s got her head deep in her panties (if she wears any). She writes to her ignorant, irresponsible, dumbass supporters:

You need to see this news: Republicans in the House of Representatives just passed a ban on abortion after 20 weeks. Now, this disastrous bill is heading for the Senate – and the White House has said it “strongly supports” it!

This is a 20-week human being.
Kirsten Gillibrand wants to kill it.

Click here to read a truthful article, “This Baby is the Face of 18,000 Unborn Babies the 20-Week Abortion Ban Would Save Every Year,” about the 20-week abortionists, the one’s like Kirsten Gilibrand who want to kill babies.

And so do all people of values, people of faith, people of morals. Yes, even some Democrats, Kirsten. Beneath your message of diabolical scam concern for women, you’re hiding the pitch for money for your re-election campaign! Deceitful trollop!

“Really?! Instead of acting on gun safety, hurricane relief for Puerto Rico or any of the dozens of things we could do to actually help people, Republicans made THIS a priority? It’s unbelievable, and it’s downright dangerous.”

Excuse me! Uh, but are you suggesting that government should pass legislation banning guns or “gun safety,” as you so deceitfully put it, and punish the law-abiding majority for the actions of a tiny handful of lunatics or criminals”? That’s the Democrat way, isn’t it, Kirsten?  Or sure, Congress should pass legislation controlling the weather, and prevent hurricanes! The U.S. government has already crippled Puerto Rico by removing from the people any notion of self-respect by depriving them of any initiative. Part of the Puerto Rican debacle is your doing, Ms Gillibrand! Now you want to hand decision-making power to the ignorant, unwashed, and immoral. Yeah, Kirsten,— like affirmative action was a great idea —  we’ve got plenty of money to support more idiotic government failures. And pigs have wings!

She’s desperately trying to confuse issues and misinform her e-mail victims by attacking anything and everything going on in Washinton and in the country, following her diatribes with a pitch to send her money to support her campaign(s). Don’t fall for it. She likes her power and her tush in a cushy senate office, where she can pose and putz, acting out her despicable narcissism.

Her latest e-mail (October 9, 2017) s the most disgusting, in which she writes:

Republicans’ desire to impose their beliefs on what women can do with our own bodies is astounding and never-ending. But I have news for them: Women will NEVER stop fighting to make our own decisions for our own bodies.

Kirsten Gillibrand is sending a message that we’d expect from some sex-starved adolescent. “Let’s be have our fun! You may get pregnant but Kirsten will fund killing the baby for us. We don’t have to think. We’re covered. Let’s f**k!”

You stupid cow, Gillibrand! It’s not just Republicans, it’s people of faith, anyone with any morals and a sense of decency who want to stop the reckless and wanton irresponsible promiscuity of the poorly educated, badly informed, unparented, liberal breeding sows out there who can’t or won’t say NO! Stop promoting the liberal materialistic consumerism that keeps you in office and start promoting family and family values, parenting, schools and teachers interested in teaching and not focusing only union politics and their pensions!!!

Gillibrand’s plan for our young women!
Act like pigs and dogs.
Gillibrand’s plan will pay when you play.

You stupid cow, Gillibrand! You miss the point! The point is that when your stupid breeding sows don’t have the brains or are too drunk to wake up and say NO! to unprotected sex, that’s when someone else has to make the decisions for them: Keep your legs closed! That’s the decision you should be making with your body! Let me repeat: Say NO! and Keep your legs together! That’s pretty simple.

Your party, Ms Gillibrand, the liberal Democrap party, has destroyed the center of morality and education with your myriad failed so-called social justice programs; you and your Democrap party have destroyed the foundation of anything that used to be good in America, the family!!!

Yeah! You got it, Kirsten. Just cross your legs!
Why not wear a shorter skirt while you’re at it? Don’t you have any sense of modesty, dignity?

You stupid cow, Gillibrand! Say it outright! You want our daughters and sisters to be out there acting like whores, prostituting themselves for a drink or a meal, or just being stray dogs and humping any bastard that staggers into their loose embrace. Right, Kirsten? What you want is government funded promiscuity and forget the responsibility that goes along with the decision-making. Right, Kirsten? What you want is a good f**k any time, anywhere, anybody, and when things go wrong, you want a quick fix. Contraception. Birth control. Abortion.


You stupid liberal Democrat cow, Kirsten Gillibrand! Your political dirt is showing on your soiled immoral panties, again. If you missed it the first time, let us repeat it for you: It’s not only Republicans who demand that women act responsibly and morally, it’s people of faith, and all moral persons. We say if you want decision-making power, you have to be a responsible citizen. But you, Kirsten Gillibrand, probably wouldn’t understand that word, “responsibility.”

Gillibrand’s Message:
Trick for a Treat!

Now, let us anticipate the liberals’ response to our demand for women’s responsibility and moral behavior: But what about the male? OK. What about the male? You dress like a slut, you’re going to be treated like a slut. Get with the program. You act like a dog in heat, you’ll be treated like a dog in heat. Get a grip. You act like you have self-respect, you’re likely to get respect from others. Get your act straight.

Just say NO!
Say NO! to Kirsten Gillibrand!

The Editor

 


Of Chickens and Ducks: A Taxonomy.


Republished with permission from the Companions of St Silouan Athonite


Those of us in the vocation of teaching or preaching sometimes find that no matter how we attempt to describe something, we fall short of the mark, that is, we just don’t have the wherewithal to communicate complex situations in terms our audience can fully embrace.


As I lay in bed one early morning unable to sleep, and immersed in reflection, I began musing and imagined the various Christian faith communities as chicken farms, and I created a taxonomy of about 4 categories of chickens. I reached for my journal and jotted down some key thoughts in order not to lose them. Once I found peace having jotted down the necessary mnemonics, I was able to doze off. I rose early that morning to reconstruct my dozy thoughts. Here they are:

There are Ducks among the Chickens

On the one hand we have the factory farms where the chickens are confined in large coops and fed a prescribed diet doped with various enhancers. These are the Roman or Western Rite Christians. They are kept in parochial coops, fed a diet of dogma, doctrine, catechesis, and Canon rules and regulations; they are under the chief keeper, the bishop, whose minions, the priests are the farm hands. The corporation headquarters calls all of the important shots for these chickens. It’s “systematic.” The lights in the coop go on timer-controlled, stay on for a set period of time, and then go off. Feeding is done automatically, mechanically by the hopper method — homiletics or liturgical preaching —, in the process of delivering  a premixed formula — a so-called liturgy —, which the clucks devour at set times, and then go on with their lackluster, routine lives until it’s time to make the trip to the processing plant. That’s category 1.

Factory farmed, raised systematically, kept in line by protocol.

Category 2, took shape when I turned my thoughts then turned to the chicken-metaphorical Eastern Orthodox Rites. Here I have free-range, cageless chickens, who roam about within a perimeter of dogma and doctrine. These chickens have relative freedom and autonomy, although the head farmer makes all of the major decisions affecting their lives and his farmhands live among the chickens, ensuring that they stay healthy, and keep the foxes and weasels at their distance. These chickens rise with the sun and roost when the sun sets. They have relative variety and color in their diets and it’s natural, no artificial additives; organic. These clucks are out there digging around and experience the mystery that is their life and the beauty that is their world. They live their live with relatively few rules and regulations, and finish their lives plump and clean.

Wandering and feeding in the beauty and mystery of creation.

There’s a third category of chicken in the chicken world I’ve conjured up. It’s the chicken kept by the guy down the road who wants his eggs fresh and his Sunday dinner just outside his door. Nice and convenient. This chicken is kept in a rather pedestrian, vulgar way, allowed to roam about, kept in a makeshift hutch or in a coop. Their keeper is not particularly well educated in chicken-care nor in what chickens need out of life so their diet and care is a bit haphazard and generally subject to their keeper’s idiosyncrasies and whims. Their keeper gets his chicken knowledge out of a popular magazine or off the Internet. No real plan, no real structure, each chicken has a personal relationship with its owner. Neighbors see these chickens and refer to them by the owner’s name: “There’s Joe’s chickens in the road again. “ “Or Amy’s chickens are in our backyard again.” With little or no supervision or protection, these chickens sometimes become road-kill or are taken by a fox or a dog. But they can also be happy chickens because they don’t know anything else, and they can be healthy chickens, but they’re good only for soup because they’re very lean and underfed; a bit tough at times. These are the non-mainstreamerspopular religious movements, sects, cults and storefront “churches.”

Backyard chickens.

Getting near completion of our taxonomy of religious chickens, of course, we have some chickens who fall somewhere in between these three groups, or chickens who get “rescued” by one or the other categories. They’re still chickens but a bit confused.

Finally, we have the un-chickens. These are creatures that think they’re chickens, look like chickens, act like chickens but are definitely not chickens. Fortunately, these bizarre items are rare and they do make the tabloids or National Geographic. They even manage to attract vulnerable followers, who think that these un-chickens are the real thing. Most of these un-chickens are charlatans, some may actually believe they are chickens, but they are easy to identify and can’t easily hide their deception from the discerning observer.

The Un-chicken. They look like chickens, act like chickens, but don’t know they’re un-chickens.

I would be remiss if I didn’t include the un-chicken category. These are not chickens at all but ducks who want to be chickens. These ducks leave their aquatic environment for dry land among the chickens. These ducks have lost track of their special gift: mythologically they inhabited and belonged to three worlds: the world of water, the world of dry land, and the world of the ether. Some would say that these ducks, if they were aware and awake, would realize that they mediated between the sky, the earth and the water. They are special. They think they’re chickens but they still sound like ducks and walk like ducks. Some of the chickens don’t even know there are ducks among them; some of the ducks don’t know they’re ducks. But in reality, you can’t mistake the ducks among the chickens but no one seems to mention the fact and no one makes a peep…or a cluck.

Moving freely between worlds.

And then there are the ducks. Wild and free. Diving into the depths or flying invisible paths. No words or texts are needed to guide them. They find their food along their journey’s course. They quench their thirst in fresh, living water. They live in all three spheres but belong to none in particular. Unlike the chickens who are earthbound and know only a circumscribed tract, the ducks share three worlds; they know the world under the reflective surface of the pond in which they dive, they know the dry land where they walk, and they know the heights, which they share with eagles. We might call the ducks among us the mystics or the contemplatives, those among us whose keeper is the Spirit.

The Spirit is in our midst!

Br Silouan …
A chicken in discernment to be a duck!


Renegade Nun Lectures in Latham: Nuns Gone Wild!


“Beside the land of Chaldea is the land of Amazonia, that is the land of Feminye. And in that realm is all woman and no man; not as some may say, that men may not live there, but for because that the women will not suffer no men amongst them to be their sovereigns.”
(The Travels of Sir John Mandeville, Dover publications, Mineola, New York, 2006, cap. XVII, p. 103-104)

The post – modern world is standing on its head; it seems everything we once knew, in a matter of perhaps two generations has been overturned. From many perspectives our world has become a truly ugly place.

Nuns Out of Order BIG-TIME!!!

Nuns Out of Order BIG-TIME!!!

Amidst all of the scandal associated with the Leadership Conference of Women Religious’ arrogance and disobedience, the Evangelist, the official newspaper of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany New York, run by a shameless feminist editor, Angela Cave, announced in the April 15, 2013 edition of the rag, the fact that the local Sisters of St Joseph of Carondelet Provincial House was featuring a talk by Elizabeth Johnson, apostate heretic nun and author of “Quest for the Living God,” a scandalous tome that drew sharp criticism from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Howard Hubbard Roman Catholic Bishop Albany, New York

Howard Hubbard
Roman Catholic Bishop
Albany, New York

The fact that the official newspaper of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany New York, presided over by hyperliberal bishop Howard Hubbard, (1) allowed the Evangelist to announce the heretic’s talk and even entitled the announcement, “Talk will shed light on the Holy Spirit,” was a confirmation of how the Albany Diocese has descended into the abyss, how out of control the nuns are who have commandeered the diocese and the diocesan offices, and how Howard Hubbard has lost every iota of control of what goes on in the Albany Diocese, and respectability in relation to his brother bishops. Any bishop who would allow the likes of Elizabeth Johnson to set foot in his diocese is questionable. But to actually allow her to disseminate her condemned ideas publicly in the diocese should send Hubbard to a remote Alaskan monastery to rediscover his spirituality!

In fact, the Evangelist makes it sound like Johnson is a recognized authority who has passed the imprimatur and nihil obstat scrutiny of the official Church:

A well-known Catholic theologian, educator and author will speak on the Holy Spirit this month as part of the final year of the Albany Diocese’s “Amazing Godevangelization initiative. 

Sister Elizabeth Johnson, CSJ, Ph.D.,a theology professor at Fordham University in Bronx, will give a lecture titled, “Filled with the Spirit,” April 11 at the Carondelet Hospitality Center in Latham. She intends to shed light on perhaps the most misunderstood part of the three persons of God.

 Perhaps the Albany diocese would do well to remove the “Amazing” and replace it with “Feminist,” since it seems that under Hubbard’s tenure, the God of the Fathers has become the Sissy God of the Feminists! To be sure, Johnson shed a dark light on the Most Holy Trinity. Disgraced! Shameless diocese! [Editor’s Note: Perhaps the Albany diocese should place more emphasis on catechizing its faithful; it may have a more lasting effect than its attempts at evangelization! There is a difference between the two both in sequence and effects!]

C. 812 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law Requires a Theologian to Have Requested and to Have Been Granted the Mandatum to Teach Theology at a Catholic College or University. The Local Ordinary Can Grant the Mandatum or Refuse/Withdraw It!

 And what has happened to the mandatum, the provision of c. 812 that requires college or university faculty to obtain from their local ordinary permission to teach theology, which may be granted or withdrawn. If Johnson is teaching at a Catholic college or university and has met the canonical requirement of requesting a mandatum, in view of her obstinance and disobedience, her apostasy and heterodoxy, shouldn’t her bishop withdraw the mandatum to teach theology at any Catholic college or university, or shouldn’t any bishop refuse to allow her to promulgate her heresies in his diocese, whether at a provincial house or not?

Anyone would have seen the writing on the wall if he or she observed that the local feminist theology mill, St Bernards School of Ministry and Theology, actually teaches Johnsons’ and her feminist colleague’s tripe, and even assigns Johnson’s controversial book as required reading in St Bernard’s Introduction to Theological Studies course! Right under Hubbard’s nose, literally!

One of the most insidious and specious reversals is that of the western notion of womanhood, especially in the United States, but with its parallels in the annihilation of any gender – specific identities in the Stalinist and Maoist communist states like pre – glasnost Russia and China. The United States, however, along with other emphatically “secular” or outright atheist states heads the list in perversion and hypocrisy, with some of the worst examples coming out of the Roman Catholic women religious communities, a.k.a. the nuns’ communities.

Margaret Farley Abortionist Nun

Margaret Farley
Abortionist Nun

Many of our American women have eschewed traditional roles of both males and females and have blurred any distinction between the two. Gone is the image of the nurturing, gentle, self – sacrificing maternal female and in with the emaciated kick – boxing viragos. Gone is the cherished vocation of motherhood and in with the pro – choice infanticidal maniacs who have turned their procreative gifts and their anatomy of conception and gestation into cesspools of promiscuity and fonts of murder. The harlot who amorally and carelessly makes herself accessible to any and all ready males has the easy escape route of a local abortion clinic. And then the hypocrites look aghast at the monsters like Kermit Gosnell, a monster that feminists have created and legislation has promoted. Now, when the naked, shocking, shameful reality hits the abortionists and pro – choicers, they can rightly hide their depraved faces. Indeed, the “culture of death” is headed by women, not death squads.

Ignoring and ignorant of the natural prerogatives associated with gender, women strive to be “recognized” as equal to men, and society has reduced standards so that the fiction becomes at least artificially true. Women want equality and while chirping “Away with the dualism and dualities!” they establish their own agendas and new dualities, and call it feminism. Men can no longer respond to nature and admire a woman, even respectfully, without risking job loss or a lawsuit. No feminist reading of the Bible can change the fact that woman was created from man, that first man was created after all of creation and woman after that.

The midrashic account:
Prophecy Departed from Deborah Because of Her Pride.
The Talmud declares that when a person becomes haughty, if he was a sage, his wisdom departs from him; and if a prophet, his ability to prophesy departs from him. The Rabbis learn of this loss of prophecy from Deborah, who boasted (Jud. 5:7): “Deliverance ceased, ceased in Israel, till you arose, O Deborah, arose, O mother, in Israel!” (In this verse Deborah portrays the helplessness of Israel that continued until she arose and delivered Israel.) In the midrashic reading, prophecy departed from her as punishment for her arrogance, leading her to plead (v. 12): “Awake, awake, O Deborah! Awake, awake, [Deborah,] strike up the [prophetic] chant!” In these words Deborah requests that the prophetic spirit return to her (BT Pesahim 66b). According to another tradition her haughtiness expresses itself by the fact that she sent someone to call for Barak (Jud. 10:4) and did not go herself. The Gemara comments that haughtiness is not becoming for women. Deborah and Huldah are guilty of the sin of pride and consequently both of them received ugly names: Ziburta (bee) and Karkushta (rat) (BT Megillah 14b). These midrashim might possibly evince a certain degree of Rabbinic displeasure with the character of Deborah as reflected in the Biblical narrative, and with the upsetting of the accepted balance of power between the sexes.

This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” (Gen. 2:23).

Women have castrated and transgendered even God and made what was once a “He” into a “She.” Today’s woman in her arrogance knows no limits, has no boundaries, even the Divine is no longer ineffable, immutable, untouchable. Even God is not safe from these blasphemous, murderous, voracious, greedy feminists.

Carol Keehan Sr Obamacare

Carol Keehan
Sr Obamacare

Women religious, otherwise known by the now obsolete even archaic –  – though still colored with something of nostalgia –  –  term as “nuns,” as women have navigated the same basic course as so many other women in today’s United States. The majority have left their traditional roles as caregivers, educators of children, missionaries, and models of piety and have donned the vestments of the harlot, have entered the world, have turned their backs on their once revered and cherished roles today to become managers, directors, administrators, and involve themselves with the vague and ambiguous social justice agendas, whatever they may be. What makes them nuns anymore is up for debate. We cannot say that they are distinguished by the traditional habit, few if any wear the habit. We cannot say that they live in pious communities of women because now many nuns have their own apartments or live outside of “the community” with “companions.” Gone are the “convents” and in are the self – contained “houses” that serve the few residents’ needs in terms of meals, medical care, religious services, and myriad other amenities. They even have car pools. Poverty or simplicity, chastity, obedience? Those were the vows once professed but today we can pretty much delete the poverty or simplicity. Some may still be practicing chaste celibacy but who knows? Obedience went out the door decades ago.

So what are we left with? Single women perhaps living in companionship with another woman or in community with a number of women. That’s all we have for certain. What we really have is…

NUNS GONE WILD

Colleen Carroll Campbell

Colleen Carroll Campbell

 “Women religious need to stand with the church, and if they don’t feel that they can in good conscience do that anymore then I think it would take more integrity to simply step back and say, you know, maybe we’re not called to be Catholic women religious anymore. Maybe we want to be something else.” (Colleen Carroll Campbell, columnist, author.)

Several reasonable presumptions obtain when determining whether one is Roman Catholic or roamin’ catholic. The presumptions are that one lives in obedience to (1) the message of the Sacra Scriptura as interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church, (2) the holy Roman Catholic Tradition and its traditions, (3) the inspired Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church. Furthermore, it is reasonably expected that one accepts the authority of the Roman Catholic hierarch and its leadership and teachings “in the Holy Spirit.” Acceptance of the dogmas and the theologies of the church are also essential.

The Roman Catholic Church in the United States is a perversion of Roman Catholicism overall and is miserably diluted by the pernicious plague of materialism, relativism, modernism, egoism, a capitalism that has derailed. Individualism and egoism have supplanted any notion of morality, and ethics of any flavor is a farce. Rights are confused with privilege, law with norm. The faithful are lost pilgrims and their leaders are myopic shepherds.

The clergy are frightened castrati, the bishops have been neutered by the nuns-gone-wild.

Those of us old enough to have grown up in a pre-Vatican II culture look back with nostalgia while dealing with an ecclesial institution that cannot make up its mind whether it is traditional, conservative, or liberal. Complaining of hemorrhaging faithful to “Christian” sects or simply avoiding the Church, the bishops merge, consolidate and close parishes and don’t seem to understand that the resulting bereavement of the assemblies-made-homeless requires counseling, therapy, not more pussyfooting around unnecessary controversy.

The merged and consolidated parishes are serviced by burnt-out clergy, who in their demented states preach nonsense. In lieu of the dwindling clergy, pseudo-clergy, the deaconate has been resurrected, but they, too, are poorly formed, arrogant, ignorant, and members, they think, of an exclusive club, the so-called permanent diaconate resurrected by Vatican II. Their directors perpetuate this concept and the territorialism runs rampant.

The Catholic schools have closed, the women religious have gone back to college to earn advanced degrees, and now have novel notions of what it means to be a “religious.” The nuns have instituted a new “church” for themselves, have insidiously invented a new magisterium, have rewritten theology along radical feminist lines and have obstinately challenged the authority of Rome and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, with the “nuns” appealing as wolves-in-sheepskins to the public in the guise of ‘misunderstood women abused at the hands of ‘those men in Rome.'”

John Calvin: This decree also commends modesty in general, and in it God anticipates the danger, lest women should harden themselves into forgetfulness of modesty, or men should degenerate into effeminacy unworthy of their nature. Garments are not in themselves of so much importance; but as it is disgraceful for men to become effeminate, and also for women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures, propriety and modesty are prescribed, not only for decency’s sake, but lest one kind of liberty should at length lead to something worse. The words of the heathen poet (Juvenal) are very true: “What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, Her sex deserting?”
(John Calvin, exposition of the Seventh Commandment; John Calvin,
Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, tr. Charles Bingham, 22 vols., (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, repr. 1996), 3:110).

They have left the traditional communities to establish maverick communities like Loretto and others where they can advocate pro-choice agendas, feminist programs, ordination of women, marriage of gays and lesbians. Yet they refuse to cut the umbilical cord between them and Mother Church. Why is that? Is there an underlying, still unborn diabolical agenda playing out?

Let’s be clear: If one rejects obedience to the ecclesial hierarchy despite one’s vows, one is excommunicated until conversion, repentance, penance, reconciliation. Period. If one advocates sacramental marriage for same-sex couples, one is not Catholic. If one advocates sacramental ordination of women to the priesthood, one is not Catholic. If one advocates any pro-choice agenda, one is not Catholic.

Moreover, if the bishops, the men who are responsible for the teaching and pastoral ministry of the Church, are indifferent, cowardly, tired, burnt out, physically or mentally moribund, they must be replaced. If any bishop has delegated essential pastoral and magisterial authority to lay underlings, and he is incapable of handling the rudder, he must go! Any bishop who tolerates public sin and communicates the sacraments to such public sinner without first demanding conversion, repentance, penance, and reconciliation is a scandal monger and is detrimental to the Church; he must go! We have too many of such bishops in the United States and that has cost the Church dearly.

But the most insidious, pernicious plague to attack the Roman Catholic Church in the United States continues to be the women religious who, at the expense of the Church and their communities, have succumbed to the worst the world has to offer: they have become feminists who live in communities. They are hypocrites, sporting the nostalgic image of the beneficent, pious, maternal nun of yesteryear but wearing the fashion, adornments, rouge, and arrogance of the harlot.

Even more insidious is that they have insinuated themselves into key positions in our educational institutions where they promulgate anti-Church propaganda and agendas to the unwary, trusting, paying student. They are in key positions to mould minds and to brainwash in the guise of trustworthy teachers. In such positions they can insensately undermine traditional teachings while slipping in–in the form of suggestions, proposals, alternative ideas, and worse still, by incorporating apostate nuns’ writings into the curriculum as required textbooks or required reading.

Much of this sabotage is happening right under the nose of the local bishop, who remains silent and by his silence, acquiesces. The American church is led by castrati, and the eunuchs react impotently to the attacks of the wild-women of the former communities of religious women.

For years I have been gently commenting on the pernicious pathology that has insidiously infected the leadership of the female religious communities and now has advanced to contaminate our schools of theology and ministry, and our pastoral centers (a.k.a. diocesan offices), even our seminary colleges have been infiltrated and turned into hotbeds of brainwashing and breeding grounds and radical feminist agenda propaganda mills. In some liberal dioceses they have been made parish life directors, the equivalent of a pastor, and have been authorized to preach their interpretation of Holy Scripture into which they inject their politics of error. Amid all of this the poorly cathechized ogle them admiringly, the women in the assembly either despise them or envy them—there seems to be no middle ground. And the circulum vitiousum continues.

Indeed, my personal and professional experience with openly dissenting female religious and their supporters both male and female in a Roman Catholic—Or was it interfaith? Or just feminist? Who knows!?!—school of theology and ministry, where they perpetrated their apostasy right under the nose of the diocesan clergy and the bishop himself. If the problem is in reality as widespread and as infiltrating as it appears to be, we are facing a form of intra-ecclesial carcinoma in which a small number of radical feminist female religious in key positions are promoting their anti-Catholic agendas in the colleges and schools of ministry, disseminating their evil through the gullible, scrupulous, unsuspecting students and into their ministries; in other words, the radical feminist anti-Church is making scurrilous incursions into the grassroots communities through the minds of ministers in formation and through the Church’s social justice ministries!

“Say to the righteous that it will go well with them, For they will eat the fruit of their actions. Woe to the wicked! It will go badly with him, For what he deserves will be done to him. O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths. (Isaiah 3:10-12)

These unscrupulous shrews-in-sheepskins are unfairly and treacherously taking advantage of the intellectually or socially vulnerable!

Add to this toxic heretical brew the castrati clerics and the eunuch episcopal curia who support these rabid female religious in their demonic subterfuges, and a handful of spiritually labile, neurotically scrupulous laypersons, and throw into the soup the hyper-liberal bishops who either indifferently or myopically allow the diocesan resources, organs, programs, services, etc. to fall under the control of these calculating shrewd nuns-gone-wild and you have what can be fairly and accurately called a totalitarian system.

The hypocrisy is nauseating, especially when one picks up some of the literature put out by the lead organizations. While deploring “duality” and “dualism,” “”genderism,” (these women seem to be titillated by the monosyllable “sex” and its variants. It’s not “sex” (a biological attribute) but “gender” (the fact of one’s sexual identity), hence “genderism,”) etc. they openly preach it and pen it–but it’s different because they say it is.

If ordained—which is and will continue to be out of the question, despite some gender – ambiguous ambivalent male pundits’ expositions, notably of the Jesuit persuasion (radical Masons in clerical collars?) for some bizarre reason—, these female radicals would likely claim that they speak with the authority of the Church; if their past and present behavior is any indicator of the possibilities, such a development would be catastrophic.

Luckily, at the present time these female religious or “nuns” are actually laypersons with no more than any non-ordained man or woman on the street, and they speak with no more authority than anyone else. True, they have finagled their way into the colleges and universities, thanks to the education they received from their communities when they abandoned the parochial schools and slipped into the secular world in which they now live quite comfortably, but far from obediently or spiritually connected.

And don’t think that they spend their time in prayer, meditation, and contemplation. Or that they’re out there emptying the bedpans of the sick and the dying, or in the missions. Some are, of course, but the mainstream American female religious feels more comfortable in a power position as a college instructor or an executive. None of that simplicity, poverty, or obedience stuff for them. Hell NO! There’s power and money to be had.

Of course, they can do all this in the United States because they are shielded by bleeding heart liberals, by the scandal-mongers, by the pro-choice mob, by the supporters of the culture of death, by their feminist man-hating supporters, and by other lay women who want to emulate “sister” (these are the women who are wannabe “nuns” and join some of the communities as “associates.” See “A Nun’s Life” ; “On this day: Lay Associates“. ) Of course, most of the women joining the “associates” carry some real baggage, are past middle age. One wonders out loud why they don’t find satisfaction in their marriages or in their children. But then they, too, want it all.)

As I suggested above, this problem seems unique to the United States, to the American Catholic Church. Here is part of the story and some of the facts that led up to the present situation created by American female religious.

So they don’t like what Rome says or does and they resent it when Rome sends its visitors to audit the communities. Their best excuse—and it’s getting really old by now—is the oldest one in the book: They say “Rome misunderstood.” But that excuse is working only on the feeble minds that can’t see farther than their agenda; it’s not working on Rome, not on thinking Catholics, not on anyone.

But the still keep haranguing, they still fill books with their bizarre pseudo – theologies, they continue to prooftext, they continue to invite the feebleminded to believe in a transgendered God, one who has gone from a Scriptural and traditional (granted the gender is largely attributed to culture and grammar) He to a post-Catholic She (which is a feminist invention that is neither cultural, traditional, nor grammatical). They promulgate their agenda and their erroneous teaching in the CINO (Catholic-in-name-only) colleges and universities both in their lectures and in the books they foist upon the unwary. While perpetrating this perverse campaign of brainwashing and soul-robbing, they continue to mislead by deploring the dualities in the 2000-year old Church and demand that what they feel is “antiquated” (= not working for them) be changed. Out of the one side of their made-up faces they accuse the Church of duality but out of the other side they preach duality, duplicity, division.

Cases in Point:

USCCB doctrine committee confirmed its position on the theological work and Sr. Elizabeth Johnson’s departure from accepted doctrine, and her apostasy in the book, “Quest for the Living God.”

Elizabeth Johnson

Elizabeth Johnson

Sr. Elizabeth Johnson? Teacher at the Jesuit-runFordhamUniversity? She wrote some things about the Holy Trinity that seemed to the US Bishops not to be exactly in line with Catholic doctrine and was called on it. She objected. The US Bishops respond.

US bishops reaffirm critique of controversial feminist pseudo-theologian’s work

The U.S. bishops have confirmed their criticism of a controversial theology book, after the author [Sr. Elizabeth Johnson] insisted they had “misunderstood” and “misrepresented” it.In an October 11, 2011 statement made public yesterday, doctrinal authorities at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said their committee “finds itself confirmed in its judgments” about Sister Elizabeth Johnson’s “Quest for the Living God,” which it previously criticized in March 2011. [Source: Washington D.C., Oct 29, 2011 / 06:19 pm (CNA)]

After reviewing the Fordham University professor’s defense of her work, the Committee on Doctrine said it “remains convinced that the book … does not sufficiently ground itself in the Catholic theological tradition as its starting point,” and “does not adequately express the faith of the Church.”

In her response to the bishops’ first critique, Sr. Johnson sought to remind them that theology “does not simply reiterate received doctrinal formulas but probes and interprets them in order to deepen understanding.”

The committee agreed with Sr. Johnson’s insight about theology, but insisted she had not accomplished this task appropriately.

“It is true that the task of theological reflection is never accomplished by the mere repetition of formulas,” they noted, saying they did not object to Sr. Johnson’s attempt “to express the faith of the Church in terms that have not previously been used and approved.”

Rather, they objected to “Quest for the Living God” because “the ‘different’ language used in the book does not in fact convey the faith of the Church.” [my emphasis]

“The real issue is whether or not new attempts at theological understanding are faithful to the deposit of faith as contained in the Scriptures and the Church’s doctrinal tradition,” they said. “All theology is ultimately subject to the norm of truth provided by the faith of the Church.”

Sr. Johnson’s treatment of the Trinity raised particular concerns for the committee.

They noted that her way of speaking about the three divine persons “leaves the door open to modalism,” an ancient heresy which rejected any real distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and taught that the three persons were simply expressions of one person.

“The book’s misunderstanding of the incomprehensibility of God has effectively ruled out even divinely revealed analogies for the relationship among the persons of the Trinity,” they noted. “The result is that the book can only speak in vague terms about the Trinity.”

While refraining from any judgment of Sr. Johnson’s motives, the committee said her book had become a “particular pastoral concern” as a work intended for a popular, non-scholarly audience. [Read: It confuses people and leads them into error about a foundational article of the Faith, without which we are not really Christians.]

“Furthermore,” they stated, “whether or not the book was originally designed specifically to be a textbook, the book is in fact being used as a textbook for the study of the doctrine of God.”

Bishops, they said, have a responsibility “to judge works of theology … in terms of how adequately they express the faith of the Church.”

When and How did the Nuns Start Going Rabid?

Rabid Nun

Rabid Nun

“They had something to gain from changes,” McDannell says, “whereas men had something to lose — to the laity and to the nuns, who are officially laity.” But correctly articulated they cannot mean “men” in a general sense but what they mean here is men who, through years of discernment and formation are called to a vocation in the priesthood, called to sacramental orders. McDannel’s use of the word “men” is extremely revealing and betrays a certain animosity towards the male gender. This feminist self-loathing is not only symptomatic of deeper disorder but is the fuel of this perverse movement.

For American nuns, Vatican II brought freedoms and controversies that are playing out today. (Maureen Fiedler joined the Sisters of Mercy in September 1962. She was 19 years old and moved into a convent where she had limited contact with the outside world. A month later, Vatican II began.

Many of these women religious committed themselves fervently to social justice ministries and work for and with the poor. Fiedler, who now hosts the public radio program Interfaith Voices, fasted for 37 days in support of the Equal Rights Amendment. Encouraged, emboldened and made greedy by the newfound freedoms, she says, they pushed for more changes. To hell with simplicity, obedience, humility and the lot! They wanted more and, like the immature personalities that they were, they wanted it now.

The impatience and unrealistic character disorders brought them to the point of fantasy: “We thought, ‘Well, women priests can’t be far behind. A married priesthood can’t be far behind,'” Fiedler says. “What we didn’t count on, I don’t think, was that many forces and people within the Vatican had set their minds to rolling back the changes that Vatican II brought about.” Those forces and people, dear Ms Fiedler, were not only in the Vatican, they were all around you but you, blinded by your self-centeredness, your ego, and your mania, like so many of your feminazi nuns, were blind to the reality. Most forces and people around you were apalled by your behavior which inspired not empathy, but distrust. And rightly so!

When John Paul II became pope in 1978, according to McDannell, the new pope “felt Vatican II was important, it was legitimate, but it had been interpreted incorrectly.” And so most scholars of Vatican II agree, it was interpreted, implemented and taught imperfectly.

The first open conflict between the American feminist nuns and John Paul II erupted in 1979 during his first visit to the United States. After one papal address, Sister Theresa Kane, a leader among the nuns, stood up to address the pope, not with humility and respect, not with grace and dignity, but like a brazen virago: “The church in its struggle to be faithful to its call for reverence and dignity to all people must respond by providing the possibility of women as persons being included in all ministries of our church,” Kane said. What’s this “must” rubbish? A bunch of ambitious feminists are now making the decision that the Church “must” respond? Where were they hiding for the past 1500 or so years?

Clement of Alexandria: We do not say that woman’s nature is the same as man’s, as she is woman. For undoubtedly it stands to reason that some difference should exist between each of them, in virtue of which one is male and the other female. Pregnancy and parturition, accordingly, we say belong to woman, as she is woman, and not as she is a human being. But if there were no difference between man and woman, both would do and suffer the same things. As then there is sameness, as far as respects the soul, she will attain to the same virtue; but as there is difference as respects the peculiar construction of the body, she is destined for child-bearing and housekeeping…. For we do not train our women like Amazons to manliness in war (although) I hear that the Sarmatian women practice war no less than the men; and the women of the Sacae besides, who shoot backwards, feigning fight as well as the men.
(Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, book 4, chapter 8).

About 40 nuns were standing, wearing blue armbands as a symbol of their support for the ordination of women. Maureen Fiedler was there. “You know, I was looking at him that day,” she says, laughing. “And it didn’t look like he had a smile on his face. He seemed like he was thinking, ‘Oh my, nobody vetted this speech, did they?'” No no one vetted the speech because no one expected such idiotic behavior by women who took vows of poverty, chastity and obedience! No one expected presumably educated adults to act like a bunch of poorly socialized adolescents. Most probably hoped for a modicum of decorum, dignity, respect, reverence maybe for the acknowledges successor to Peter and head of the Vatican state!

A Conservative Order

Pope John Paul II favored a more traditional church, where authority resided in Rome, where altar boys were boys, and women religious centered their lives in community prayer. “A good number of nuns have serious questions about the positions that the bishops put forward, and so they’re not anxious to jump in the fray and become, you know, warriors on the bedroom issues, if you will,” Fiedler says. But they did and they continue to do so and Fiedler represents many of those  apostatic positions.

Those are fighting words — and in early 2009, the Vatican cracked down. It intended to reorganize the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which represents the vast majority of American nuns.

Helen Prejean

Helen Prejean

It said the group has “serious doctrinal problems” and promotes “radical feminist themes.” “I know the road I’m on is the road of the Gospel, so that’s where my energies are. Helen Prejean, author of “Dead Man Walking”

“I think it was important that this doctrinal assessment be done,” says Campbell. “It was important to many lay Catholics as well, because there’s been so much confusion about what the church teaches, because so many women religious have either not proclaimed that teaching, or have openly dissented from it.” An what’s to lose from an official “audit”? What reasonable basis can be had why an organization claiming affiliation with the Vatican and enjoying all the benefits associated with that association, including recognition, should not be audited by its oversight insitution? Perhaps because they knew their jig was up and about to be exposed?

In April 2012, the Vatican accused the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), the umbrella group that represents the majority of American nuns, of “doctrinal confusion.” As LCWR leaders meet this week (Aug. 7-11) to plot their response to the Vatican, many of the sisters say they are just following the spirit of Vatican II.

But some critics say many Catholic sisters have been using the Second Vatican Council to justify positions and activities that are in conflict with official church teachings. Anathema sit!

Colleen McDannel

Colleen McDannel

From 1962 to 1965, church leaders at the Second Vatican Council produced 16 documents on a host of  topics, from introducing local languages into the Mass, to expanding lay involvement and promoting  more interfaith dialogue. One of the documents focused on religious life, encouraging Catholic sisters to re-examine their mission, their rules, even their style of dress.

LCWR represents about 80 percent of the country’s 57,000 Catholic sisters. The group has increasingly taken advocacy positions, including some that anger the church’s male hierarchy. “These are the sisters that publicly stated to John Paul II that women should be ordained, that women should be allowed to work in all the ministries of the church. This is the same organization that signed the New York Times letter which said that there is a legitimate diverse opinion on the question of abortion,” said University of Utah professor Colleen McDannell, author of “The Spirit of Vatican II.”

In 2008, Vatican officials began an investigation into the lives and doctrine of U.S. sisters. This past April, the Vatican released a report accusing the LCWR of having “serious doctrinal problems.” The assessment specifically criticized the group for being “largely silent” on right-to-life issues. And it mandated that the group come under the authority of three U.S. bishops.

Mary Hughes

Mary Hughes

“The reality is that we’re stuck with a situation and a mandate that we are not happy about,” said Hughes. “We answered all the questions that were given to us in the doctrinal assessment honestly, carefully, prudently, and when we didn’t hear back, I guess we thought that we were believed.”

“We’re talking about defending the sanctity of every human life, from the cradle to the grave, defending the sanctity of marriage as the church sees marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and just generally promoting church teaching, and upholding that teaching and witnessing with joy to that, and that’s not what many lay Catholics have seen,” said Campbell.

Campbell, meanwhile, said the answer is fairly clear. “Women religious need to stand with the church, and if they don’t feel that they can in good conscience do that anymore then I think it would take more integrity to simply step back and say, you know, maybe we’re not called to be Catholic women religious anymore. Maybe we want to be something else.”

Read More on this Subject

Father John Zuhlsdorf provides a rogues’ gallery of some of the worst offenders in this diabolical drama. Those of you who wonder why the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the American Bishops initiated a reform of the leadership of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), should take a little trip down memory lane. (Click the link) Nuns Gone Wild: A Trip Down Memory Lane

Battle for the Core of the World also does a great job on the subject at: US Nuns and the Vatican

The Huffington Post provides a more slanted, alternative perspective on this scandal at US Nuns Clash with the Vatican

An interesting analysis of the subject of E. Johnson and the Magisterium can be found in Richard R. Galliardez, When the Magsiterium Intervenes: The Magisterium and Theologians in Today’s Church (Liturgical Press (2012), ISBN-13: 9780814680544).

Dr Evil supports the Leadership Conference of Women Religious

Dr Evil supports the Leadership Conference of Women Religious

 

Is Fr James Kane Really Fit to Be Pastor?


The homily: “The homily is part of the liturgical action and is meant to foster a deeper understanding of the word of God, so that it can bear fruit in the lives of the faithful. […] For this reason preachers need to be in close and constant contact with the sacred text; they should prepare for the homily by meditation and prayer, so as to preach with conviction and passion” (Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation, Verbum Domini, No. 59).

After two straight weeks of joyously positive experiences at a graduate’s coloquium marking the successful conclusion to years of study, and a beautiful convocation and liturgy presided over by his excellency Howard Hubbard, bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, I felt my faith in our Roman Catholic tradition was in a phase of regeneration and revitalization; then I just happened, as if nudged to the television room to watch the celebration of the Sunday Eucharistic liturgy at St Patrick’s RC church in Ravena, New York, presided over by none other than Fr James Kane, the so-called “pastor” of that starving flock, and who is also director of the Commission for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany. It was then and there that I felt that sinking, bitter feeling rising again!

No sooner had Kane concluded the reading of the Gospel than he set off on a mercenary, pharisaical, pecuniary, worldly diatribe on the Bishop’s Appeal, and continued his disgraceful performance with a detailed, almost scrupulous step-by-step instruction on how to complete the Bishop’s Appeal envelope, and proceeding to instruct the greeters and ushers on how to collect the envelopes. The entire pitch was made from the ambo, with the Gospel (Lectionary) open in front of him and serving as a convenient support while he filled out a [mock] envelope during his “teaching.” All of this immediately following the Gospel proclamation and in lieu of the homily!

Isn’t Kane aware that this sort of worldly administrative junk is to be done at the end of the liturgy, during the time set aside for idiotic announcements?!?

Mixing Satan with the Cross

To my knowledge, Jesus Christ is not depicted on any currency denomination of any nation; so why does Kane take the time reserved for breaking open the word, probably the only time much of the congregation has for catechesis at all during the week, to talk about Bishop’s Appeal, filling out envelopes, and tithing? True, the local bishop can make exceptions but only in very special circumstances and I doubt that even in the Albany Diocese the time for homily and teaching would be set aside for Kane’s abominable display. In his ecumenical and interfaith activities, has Kane become contaminated with some of the bad habits and obsessions of the Reformists? (Probably not. At least they know how to preach.)

 For Kane’s benefit, here are some notes on the importance of the homily:

Key to Understanding the Word

The “Homily” is treatise given during the Catholic Mass in which the priest or deacon discusses the readings of that day (old testament, epistle, and gospel readings), not the bishop’s appeal! The Priest may discuss how the daily readings from the Bible relate to issues of the day and other moral and religious points he wishes to make. Not  how to fill out the bishop’s appeal envelope! Homilies are the kind of preaching that was used by the Apostles and Fathers in addressing the faithful. The homily is expository of the Word (sermo in latin) of God and therefore is not considered a sermon, the Word of God itself. This time for the Liturgy of the Word is not set aside to instruct greeters and ushers how to hand out envelopes or to inform those in the pew where the pencils are!

A group of theology students receive this lesson from an elderly teacher of homiletics – the art of writing and delivering homilies: “When you preach, remember that the first five minutes are for God, the second five are for the faithful, and the third for the devil.” Alongside the “guidebook” for the “Catholically correct” believer, there is something similar for “updated” homilies for services. The homily doesn’t always capture the attention of the faithful during Mass – quite the contrary. So why don’t we teach our so-called preachers how to preach?!?

The problem is quite clear to the men of the Church. Benedict XVI became concerned with the issue two years ago with his post-synod apostolic exhortation Verbum Domini, which gathers the reflections and proposals emerging from the XII General Ordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, which met at the Vatican from 5 to 26 October 2008 with the theme “The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church.” The Pontiff’s theological recommendation was to “avoid generic and abstract homilies” as well as “useless digressions.” In short, the quality of sermons “must be improved.”

“Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy. For it is from scripture that lessons are read and explained in the homily, and psalms are sung; the prayers, collects, and liturgical songs are scriptural in their inspiration and their force, and it is from the scriptures that actions and signs derive their meaning. Thus to achieve the restoration, progress, and adaptation of the sacred liturgy, it is essential to promote that warm and living love for scripture to which the venerable tradition of both eastern and western rites gives testimony.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, No. 24)

“By means of the homily the mysteries of the faith and the guiding principles of the Christian life are expounded from the sacred text, during the course of the liturgical year; the homily, therefore, is to be highly esteemed as part of the liturgy itself; in fact, at those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the people on Sundays and feasts of obligation, it should not be omitted except for a serious reason.” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, No. 52)

“Sacred theology rests on the written word of God, together with sacred tradition, as its primary and perpetual foundation. By scrutinizing in the light of faith all truth stored up in the mystery of Christ, theology is most powerfully strengthened and constantly rejuvenated by that word. For the Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired really are the word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology. (3) By the same word of Scripture the ministry of the word also, that is, pastoral preaching, catechetics and all Christian instruction, in which the liturgical homily must hold the foremost place, is nourished in a healthy way and flourishes in a holy way.” (Dei Verbum, No. 24)

“The proclamation of the Gospel and the homily are reserved to the ordained, while a lay person is prohibited from preaching at any time during Mass, even in the cases of a seminarian or pastoral assistant. Instructions or testimonies by a lay person, however, may be given after the Prayer after Communion for a serious reason, but the homily should not be omitted. Such matters are regulated by the Diocesan Bishop.” (USCCB, Thirty Questions on the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum for Diocesan Liturgy and Communications Personnel, No. 18)

On the the importance of the homily, Verbum Domini continues:

“Each member of the People of God “has different duties and responsibilities with respect to the word of God. Accordingly, the faithful listen to God’s word and meditate on it, but those who have the office of teaching by virtue of sacred ordination or have been entrusted with exercising that ministry”, namely, bishops, priests and deacons, “expound the word of God”. Hence we can understand the attention paid to the homily throughout the Synod. In the Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis, I pointed out that “given the importance of the word of God, the quality of homilies needs to be improved. The homily ‘is part of the liturgical action’ and is meant to foster a deeper understanding of the word of God, so that it can bear fruit in the lives of the faithful”.  The homily is a means of bringing the scriptural message to life in a way that helps the faithful to realize that God’s word is present and at work in their everyday lives. It should lead to an understanding of the mystery being celebrated, serve as a summons to mission, and prepare the assembly for the profession of faith, the universal prayer and the Eucharistic liturgy. Consequently, those who have been charged with preaching by virtue of a specific ministry ought to take this task to heart. Generic and abstract homilies which obscure the directness of God’s word should be avoided, as well as useless digressions which risk drawing greater attention to the preacher than to the heart of the Gospel message. The faithful should be able to perceive clearly that the preacher has a compelling desire to present Christ, who must stand at the centre of every homily. For this reason preachers need to be in close and constant contact with the sacred text; they should prepare for the homily by meditation and prayer, so as to preach with conviction and passion. The synodal assembly asked that the following questions be kept in mind: “What are the Scriptures being proclaimed saying? What do they say to me personally? What should I say to the community in the light of its concrete situation? The preacher “should be the first to hear the word of God which he proclaims”, since, as Saint Augustine says: “He is undoubtedly barren who preaches outwardly the word of God without hearing it inwardly.”  The homily for Sundays and solemnities should be prepared carefully, without neglecting, whenever possible, to offer at weekday Masses cum populo brief and timely reflections which can help the faithful to welcome the word which was proclaimed and to let it bear fruit in their lives. (Verbum Domini, No. 59)

“As Saint Jerome reminds us, preaching needs to be accompanied by the witness of a good life: “Your actions should not contradict your words, lest when you preach in Church, someone may begin to think: ‘So why don’t you yourself act that way?’ … In the priest of Christ, thought and word must be in agreement”. (Verbum Domini, No. 60)

I had occasion to comment on another recent televised liturgy at St Patrick’s when I observed the deacon, James O’Rourke, in total oblivion of what was going on at the altar while he was conspicuously occupied with what was going on in the pews. (See my post Deacon Watch: The Distracted Deacon. )

This most recent circus performance from the ambo was an absolute disgrace. Kane has been the subject of a great number of adverse observations from members of that parish community and he’s not collecting better marks as he continues his interfaith adaptations of the Roman liturgy. Get on the same page as the rest of us Kane or take a hike! But more than that, I hope that this post has helped Fr Kane to better understand the importance of the homily.

Here are some selected quotes from the Apostolic Exhortation Verbum Domini: Selected Quotes from Verbum Domini (Zenit).

To learn more about the community in which Fr James Kane operates the Church of St Patrick, visit the blog at Smalbany.

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hireling and not a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hireling and cares nothing for the sheep.  (John 10:1-30)

Standing Around Watching His Flock Die!


Liturgy: Epiclesis in Eucharistic Prayer I


Epiclesis in Eucharistic Prayer I
And More on Receiving Communion

Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university answers questions on the liturgy.

Q: As I have watched Pope Benedict XVI celebrate Mass on television, I have noticed that during the Roman Canon, he appears to perform the epiclesis twice: “Through him we ask you to bless and accept …” and “Bless and approve ….” Every priest I have seen pray the canon has simply blessed the gifts at the beginning of the canon and then performed the epiclesis later in the prayer. Is there a difference between these two gestures made by the Holy Father and by the priests .

A: Actually I think that the Holy Father is simply fulfilling the rubrics for the venerable Roman Canon, or Eucharistic Prayer I.

For your convenience you can read or download the entire article at Liturgy-Epiclesis in Eucharistic Prayer I.


%d bloggers like this: