Desmond Tutu: ‘I Would Refuse to Go to a Homophobic Heaven’

Interesting remarks by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, demonstrating how important it is to use precise language, not the buzzwords of the day. "Homophobic" has taken on the connotation of any attitude that falls short of complete approval of homosexual sexual acts. If he's saying that he would separate himself from God for eternity if he found that God displeased him in this way, that's pretty shocking for a churchman. Another black mark against the confused mess that is mainline Anglicanism.

A solution for the Romeikes?

I've written before about that unfortunate German family, the Romeikes, who fled Germany and sought asylum in the United States. The parents were criminals, admittedly: they were — brace yourselves — homeschooling their children, which has been illegal in Germany since Nazi days. Initially granted that asylum during the Bush presidency, the family later saw it revoked by the Obama administration, and is facing deportation back to Germany, where the children will be forced into state schools.

The Home School Legal Defense Association is trying to get the case to the Supreme Court, but it's a long shot.

I have a modest proposal.

If it appears that deportation of the Romeikes is imminent, they should flee to Mexico or Canada, and from there enter the U.S. illegally. Since the Obama administration has already declared it impossible to find all the "undocumented" immigrants we now have, or to prevent more from entering by securing the border, and since it has offered a path to citizenship for those "undocumented" immigrants they do become aware of, this seems the path of least resistance, with a reasonable chance of achieving the protections of citizenship as well. 

Yes, I'm being facetious. But I hope the plausibility of this absurd tactic will illustrate how unfair the administration's policies are. Sneak across the border to get a better job, and as long as you haven't had more than a couple of DUI's and a handful of criminal convictions while living here, you can stay and become a citizen. But flee to the U.S. openly just to be able to escape the tyranny of enforced state indoctrination, and it doesn't matter how upright and law-abiding you are: out you go.

Maybe rescuing the Romeikes is a job for the Catholic Church...? We're a world-wide organization, and we've helped rescue the persecuted before. I'm just sayin'.

A Rush to Sainthood?

Don't get me wrong; I think that both John Paul II and John XXIII bore the great burden of the papacy honorably and skillfully. But the move to canonize both of them now may someday come to be seen as shortsighted and unwise.

It's good for Catholics to remember that when the Church recognizes a person in its Canon of Saints, it's doing nothing on its own. Canonization isn't an award that the Church confers for what appears to have been exemplary service, like the Congressional Medal of Honor is for military heroism. It's just a recognition of something that has already happened.

The Church has always understood that it has no power to "make" a saint. Only God, out of His great mercy, can admit a soul to full communion with Himself — that is, to true sainthood. And when He does, he doesn't post about it on Facebook or put it up in lights somewhere.

Instead, the faithful discover, over time, that when they ask in prayer that a person of extraordinary holiness who has died would intercede with God for them, sometimes the result for which they ask comes to pass. And it comes to pass in a way that can't be satisfactorily explained by naturalistic causes. In other words, by a miracle. After a sufficient number of such miracles and much skeptical investigation, the Church may conclude very cautiously that that person's soul must have come into such a state of the purest communion with God that he or she must have actually interceded with Him; that is, has become what we call a saint.

But whether the Church ever takes that step for any particular person, the actual spiritual state of that soul doesn't change.

I worry, then, that Pope Francis is taking an unwise risk by announcing the imminent canonization of these two very recent popes, and especially by waiving the requirement for a second miracle in the case of Pope John XXIII. Unless he explains that latter decision very carefully and effectively, he may end up giving the impression that sainthood is, indeed, like a military decoration — a mere acknowledgement of extraordinarily good works, which can never "earn" Heaven for anyone.

Bob Schieffer's blind spot

This post from Deacon Greg Kandra's blog takes note of the surprising ignorance of veteran reporter Bob Schieffer of the coercion that's already taking place against those who don't support soi-disant gay marriage.

So if you've encountered growing support for the redefinition of marriage among your Catholic friends, you might ask them whether they know about it, too. Because this isn't a fight about freedom; it's a fight about coercion in support of a lifestyle, and making that coercion acceptable in the public mind.

"The non-ordination of non-Catholic non-priests"

Phil Lawler over at CatholicCulture.org takes note of a newspaper story that leads off with a remark about how there haven't been any signs that Pope Francis is thinking of allowing women to be ordained as priests in the Roman Catholic Church. I've never read a better critique of the nonsensical coverage this subject always gets in the secular press than what he writes next:

So now look at the headline on the same story: “Roman Catholic women priests ordained in Falls Church.” How could that be, if women can’t be ordained as priests? Which is true: the headline or the lead sentence? They can’t both be right. 

Read on, and the confusion mounts. The ceremony took place at the First Christian Church. One of the women who claimed ordination is a chaplain at an Adventist hospital. Her husband is a Methodist, the story tells us, “but she said she couldn’t give up her Catholic faith.” Then, a few sentences later, we’re told that “the women taking part are automatically excommunicated.” So then she did give up her Catholic faith, didn’t she? 

Fellow journalists, this really isn’t that hard. You can’t be a Catholic priest if you’re not a Catholic. Since the Catholic Church does not ordain women as priests, women who claim to be priests must belong to some other organization. You can argue against Catholic teaching, and can champion the cause of these women, if you like. But the principle of non-contradiction still applies.

So, when you read of the next bogus "ordination" of "womenpriests" in your local newspaper, write to the Editor, and use Mr. Lawler's approach to assert sound Catholic doctrine. In the struggle between truth and falsehood, it's time for lay Catholics to strike the blows that must be struck.

But to heck with marriage! Immigration is the most pressing issue!

Catholic News Agency (CNA) reports that Archbishop Gomez tells us how "immigration tests America's identity, and how it is 'the most pressing issue that we face in American public life."

In the light of today's refusal by the U. S. Supreme Court to validate the efforts of the American people to hold to the definition of marriage which the Catholic Church itself teaches, Archbishop Gomez' assertion seems downright silly. On every level — moral, political, cultural — the defense of marriage is far more important than giving illegal immigrants a "path to citizenship" in the country they broke into.

One more reason not to give up

CatholicVote.org has the best take on things so far:

What a morning. Time to exhale. 

What you are reading in the news is not the whole story. 

Moments ago the Supreme Court handed down two very narrow decisions. Both of them were wrong. But the marriage fight is far from over. ...

In essence, the Court invalidated a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and rejected the right of the people to defend a law passed by millions of citizens in California. The Court ducked the question of whether Proposition 8 in California is constitutional – and most importantly, did NOT create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. 

States that have protected marriage and those that seek to do so in the future cannot be stopped. 

The Court did disenfranchise millions of voters with its decision on Proposition 8. Five Supreme Court justices effectively dismissed the votes of millions of citizens who twice voted to protect marriage. Nevertheless, the record in California is now plain: the people voted to protect marriage, but reckless politicians refused to respect the right of the people and enforce the law. 

What is left is a single decision by a district court judge that applies to two couples. The legal fight to clarify what happens next will be critical and will be heavily contested by defenders of marriage in the courts. Same-sex marriage advocates touting immediate statewide gay marriage in California are misleading the public. 

Today’s decision striking down portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was limited to only those same-sex "marriages" already recognized in the states that allow same-sex marriage. 

Also, remember that other parts of DOMA protect states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriage in other states. That portion of the law was not challenged and remains in force – and in some ways was strengthened by today’s decision. 

Thus, while today’s decisions were very disappointing, they do not represent a watershed moment for marriage as many are suggesting. Same-sex marriage advocates did not get what they wanted, namely a “Roe v. Wade” for same-sex marriage. 

We have a clear path forward to protect marriage and respond to these rulings, in Congress and in the states, and in the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens. ... 

The debate on marriage lives on and is up to us. 

Why Prop 8 should have been clearly upheld

Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com made these points earlier today:

The justices had a simple question before them, and the answer is also simple when you abide by the written Constitution.

• First, marriage is not in the U.S. Constitution. 
• Second, the 14th Amendment, which is not about marriage but about race, and not about couples but individuals, does not apply to Prop. 8. 
• Third, the 10th Amendment recognizes states have powers that are not federal powers and that are not prohibited by the Constitution. 
• Fourth, Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form of government to each state, where a written constitution is the supreme law of the state. 
• Fifth, the California Constitution contains Proposition 8 as Article 1, Section 7.5. 

Therefore, Prop. 8 should have been upheld.

But we live in an era in which many believe the Constitution must be "living," by which they mean that parts of it which stand in the way of their desires must be discarded or ignored; and that parts which have never before been recognized as pertaining to a situation suddenly develop "penumbras" (a phrase used in the Roe v. Wade decision) in which vast new meanings can be found.

One more thing: by ruling that the plaintiffs had no standing although California officials had abandoned their sworn duty to defend Proposition 8, the Court has effectively nullified the power of the state initiative. A hostile Governor can now say openly to the people of his state, "It doesn't matter what laws you enact by initiative. My allies will get a judge to declare it unconstitutional, and then I and my government will refuse to defend it."

Good news: Prop 8 not struck down

From Anthony Pugno, general counsel for the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund, about this morning's Supreme Court decision:

It is widely being mis-reported that the Court ruled against Prop 8. IT DID NOT! 

Rather, the Court said it could not reach a decision because California government officials refused to defend the law. So it did not rule on Prop 8's validity. 

In doing so, the Court also nullified the Ninth Circuit's ruling against Prop 8, which is a great victory in itself! 

So, the voter-passed Constitutional Amendment to protect man-woman marriage remains the law of the land in California, because only an appellate court can strike down a voter proposition statewide.

It would have been tremendously encouraging to have had the Court clearly affirm the right of Californians to defend the indispensable institution of marriage. We didn't get that. But for us troops on the ground, our orders stay the same: continue the fight to preserve marriage — in our parishes, in our families, among our co-workers and friends.

Cdl. O'Malley uses the business end of the crozier

CatholicCulture.org reports that Cardinal O'Malley of Boston has forbidden a dissident Austrian priest to speak at a parish in his diocese. Good going, Cardinal. That shepherd's crook you've got is not just to nudge the sheep gently, but to take a mighty whack at the wolves trying to get into the sheepfold. Encore!

To repeat a metaphor I've used many times before: If a Chevy dealer asked to use a local Ford showroom to make a sales presentation, what Ford dealer in his or her right mind would let them? No real Chevy dealer would even have the chutzpah to ask. But for some reason, people who want to tear down the Catholic Church, and remake its practices closer to their hearts' desire, never seem to lack for it.

Unsolicited advice from fools, episode 9,538

We now get advice to our Church from the renowned theologian and peanut farmer Jimmy Carter, as recorded here:

I think there’s a slow, very slow, move around the world to give women equal rights in the eyes of God [Note the phrasing: we are the ones in charge of what rights women have in the eyes of God]. What has been the case for many centuries is that the great religions, the major religions, have discriminated against women in a very abusive fashion and set an example for the rest of society to treat women as secondary citizens. In a marriage or in the workplace or wherever, they are discriminated against. And I think the great religions have set the example for that, by ordaining, in effect, that women are not equal to men in the eyes of God. [See how deftly he shifts his ground from talking about equal rights, which are enjoyed by people who can be quite different from each other, to equal in the sense of being the same. We might as well say, "Everyone has red hair in the eyes of God."] This has been done and still is done by the Catholic Church ever since the third century, when the Catholic Church ordained that a woman cannot be a priest for instance but a man can [Unfortunately for Jimmy, there's no evidence that women were ordained as bishops or priests in the early Church, only that they held positions of leadership — as is the case today, when women dominate the executive positions in most Catholic dioceses]. A woman can be a nurse or a teacher but she can’t be a priest. [Jimmy makes the ubiquitous mistake of seeing the priesthood as just another job].

So there you have it: a former leader of the richest, most powerful country in the world, unafraid to criticize an institution he demonstrably does not understand. Time magazine, of course, fawns.

Wait a minute, though. I thought that Protestants thought we Catholics were bad because we venerated a woman, the Virgin Mary, too much. And what about St. Teresa of Avila, St. Catherine of Siena, and St. Therese of Lisieux, all of whom have been recognized as Doctors of the Church, right alongside St. Jerome, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustine? What about the legions of faithful Christian women who have been recognized as Saints throughout the centuries? Is all that to count for nothing because an ignorant Georgia pol hasn't learned how our Church actually sees its priesthood?

Yeah, probably, at least if you're on the staff of Time.

Cold comfort

Phil Lawler at the estimable CatholicCulture.org tries to reassure us that we needn't worry about Pope Francis' reputation for off-the-cuff remarks that cause a stir.

I understand the concerns about off-the-cuff papal remarks. Remarks by the Holy Father could easily be misunderstood, for several reasons:

• because he does not have a cadre of speechwriters screening each sentence for potential trouble;

• because he is usually speaking in Italian, and although he is fluent in that language it is not his mother tongue, so he may not be aware of every nuance; and

• because his remarks are reported and interpreted to the world by journalists who do not have a fundamental understanding of the Catholic faith.

I really hope he's right. But when I re-read his assurances, I just get more worried. Look at what is admitted:

• that the Pope often speaks without careful preparation; 
• that by doing so in Italian, he compounds the problem and risks saying things that aren't even what he means; 
• and that these unprepared, unintended remarks will be pounced upon by ignorant or even hostile journalists who will spread even more confusion among the faithful, a fact that Pope Francis could hardly be unaware of.

But we're told not to worry. Why?

Should we be worried, then, about the possibility of some terrible papal gaffe? I don’t think so. Pope Francis is a very intelligent man, and he was chosen by his fellow cardinals to be Roman Pontiff because they recognized his sound pastoral judgment.

 So we're not to worry because Pope Francis is very intelligent, and his fellow cardinals think he has sound pastoral judgment. Well, I'm sure he's smart. But I think it would be easy to make a case that his very carelessness on the three points Mr. Lawler presents is evidence of poor pastoral judgment. I'd even venture to say that such behavior would get any CEO in the world fired. And the CEO's of the world only deal in money; the Pope is responsible for souls. Lots of them.


So I pray hard for this Pope, and for Mr. Lawler too, in hopes that he will end up being right, and that he'll be more convincing next time.

No wonder we're in trouble...

Last night, I was talking with a longtime prominent member of our parish, a man in his sixties who has served on many committees and held important volunteer leadership positions, and is a member of a prominent Catholic men's organization which I won't name.

At one point, I happened to say that I was very interested in apologetics.

He said, "What's apologetics?"

"I Want To Do For Oakland What Francis Is Doing For the Church"

Whispers in the Loggia comments on the post-Communion address by the newly-installed Bishop Michael Barber of Oakland, a few miles from here. Bishop Barber is Pope Francis' first new appointment to take office.

His fulsome praise of the man who ordained him -- longtime Oakland bishop John Quinn, the very model of a Catholic Progressive prelate -- doesn't bode well. Nor does his decision not to wear his miter and carry his crozier that day, which is expected of a new bishop when giving his first such address. Nor does his lack of suitable appreciation for the presence of Archbishops Cordileone and Vigneron, his two immediate predecessors in Oakland. Nor does his banter with Governor Jerry Brown, in attendance, a 'Catholic' who strongly and publicly favors abortion rights and gay marriage, in direct opposition to Catholic moral teaching.

And no, there'll be no prizes for those of you who guessed correctly that Bishop Barber happily gave Governor Brown the Eucharist when the latter presented himself, despite the Governor's long persistence in manifest grave sin.

If praising Progressives, ignoring custom and rules, snubbing orthodox bishops, and schmoozing with Catholic renegades like Brown is Bishop Barber's idea of "what Francis is doing for the Church" -- wow, I hope he's very, very wrong.

Qui tacet consentire

I first encountered the following saying on Karen Hall's late, much-lamented blog Some Have Hats:

I've had enough of exhortations to be silent. Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues! I see that the world is rotten because of silence.

The attribution is commonly to St. Catherine of Siena, but like Philothea on Phire, I haven't been able to verify it. But it certainly seems to track with what I know of that outspoken saint's life!
This post's title is the Latin form of the old legal maxim, "Silence gives consent." I don't know about you, but I don't want to end up at the Judgement having to explain how I could remain silent in the face of the truly colossal evils that have sprung up during my lifetime.
And as I was reminded tonight, the Enemy doesn't have to beat you down to silence you; he just has to distract you -- often with superficially good things -- long enough for your time to run out.
I'm done with that.

Five hundred sixty

Today is the 560th anniversary of the  capture and sack of the great Christian city that was once known as Constantinople, by the noble representatives of the Religion of Peace. 

Archbishop Cordileone's appearance at the National Organization for Marriage's recent rally in Washington does him tremendous credit. The guy flies all the way across the country to provide some Catholic presence at a time when the Catholic perspective is needed more than ever, and when many American bishops are sitting in their offices trying to stay out of the line of fire.

However.

Does the Catholic perspective on marriage really rest mainly on the welfare of children? A prominent Catholic pro-marriage organization here in California seems to think so. But wouldn't we be better off tackling the move to deconstruct marriage head-on, by challenging the modern (post-modern?) premise that sex is mainly about personal pleasure, with children being a distant second or third benefit? Don't we run the risk of ceding too much ground — ground that we'll just have to recapture later?

Slumber, my darlings

What children want is the assurance so well captured by Stephen Foster 150 years ago in his lullaby Slumber My Darling:

Slumber, my darling, thy mother is near,
Guarding thy dreams from all terror and fear,
Sunlight has pass'd and the twilight has gone,
Slumber, my darling, the night's coming on.
Sweet visions attend thy sleep,
Fondest, dearest to me,
While others their revels keep,
I will watch over thee.

That last line is the essence of parenting. I'll watch over you, even when I have to make sacrifices to do so.

Trouble is, many adults are so fixated on their "revels" that they have scant time for children. One can see this happening in wealthy families in the past — Winston Churchill's parents come to mind, for example.  But the disease has now spread to the middle and lower classes, who now enjoy enough addictive pleasures, technological and otherwise, that children seem to them now to be little but a burden.

Air Force Culture: shut up, Christians

This story has been making the rounds lately. The actions and statements of the Department of Defense are another sign that the war against Christ and His Church is ramping up.

But not in the blunt-instrument way that a few people have portrayed it. The Enemy is too smart for that. As usual, a framework is being set up, one that will enable the wanted result to be obtained, once the furore has died down.

The wording of most of the section isn't so bad in itself, mainly forbidding coercion by superiors toward their subordinates. But the kicker comes at the end, where the policy is abruptly extended to all Air Force personnel, in language that's vague enough to fit the proverbial Mack truck through:

Airmen, especially commanders and supervisors, must ensure that in exercising their right of religious free expression, they do not degrade morale, good order, and discipline in the Air Force or degrade the trust and confidence that the public has in the United States Air Force.

It doesn't take much to imagine how atheist Mikey Weinstein, and others whom DoD is looking to for advice these days, will interpret this. All Christian evangelization, no matter how gentle, will be deemed to degrade morale and good order. Where this isn't done explicitly, just the threat will probably silence many.

You can find the entire document on the DoD's website.

We could use more of this!

In her blog post The Well-Ordered Life, Jennifer Fulwiler makes a point that needs constant repeating: that the Church's teachings offer a coherent, fulfilling (but not always easy) way of life, a way that stands in increasingly appealing contrast to the Way of the World, as the latter goes merrily off the deep end.

And very usefully, she observes that "It's amazing, in fact, to see how naturally your priorities fall into proper order when you make even a basic effort to follow the ancient teachings and traditions of the Church." [emphasis added] Lest you think this observation hasn't cost her some discomfort, I encourage you to read her entire post.

Note: this comes from the National Catholic Register, not the National "Catholic" Reporter.