The domain registration for Abp. Milingo's web site lists it at 7000 26th Ave. NW in Seattle, an address that appears on a list of Unification Church facilities.
September 2006 Archives
Philosopher David Carlin, often a thoughtful critic, writes a provocative piece suggesting that the clergy should stop performing the civil aspects of weddings, for the reason that this makes them complicit in the state's policy of easy divorce.
"...If either of you would like to end your marriage tomorrow, you have a perfect right to do so. If you would like to remain married until death, you can do that too. It's all up to you. Don't feel constrained by the vows you have just taken." [...] The priest, insofar as he is the performer of a civil marriage, will in effect be adding this to his implicit comments: "You have just entered into a union which is between a man and a woman, or between a man and a man, or between a woman and a woman. The civil institution of marriage that you have just elected to become participants in has neither permanence nor gender specificity. It bears absolutely no resemblance to the traditional Catholic institution of marriage."
Prof. Carlin contends that the officiant of a civil-law marriage is in effect saying all the above nonsense: but that's a very doubtful proposition. The Catholic minister who conducts a wedding ceremony and performs the related civil functions has every intention to communicate to the spouses (one man, one woman) that their commitment is permanent. If the State fails to maintain that permanence in civil law, that implies no "implicit comments" of agreement by the clergyman. Carlin's argument seems to consist of little else than putting words in someone else's mouth, an unworthy rhetorical tactic.
Ed Peters offers a rebuttal with regard to the canonical implications of Carlin's suggestion.
Obviously Prof. Carlin grieves over the divorce mentality among Catholics and he is acutely aware of the state's contribution to this social disaster. But while looking for ways to bring Church teaching on marriage more directly to bear on state policies in this area, we must avoid destroying one of the few areas wherein the state and the Church cooperate correctly in marriage....
Denis Boyles of NRO agrees that the problem with journalists is that they have no idea what Christianity or Islam teaches, much less have a grasp on philosophy:
Part of the problem journalists face when they have to report on complicated, somewhat obscure topics, such as Roman Catholic dogmatic theology, is that graduate journalism courses like JOM926 may stress spelling & grammar, but completely at the expense of “faith & reason.” So maybe it’s not fair to blame journalists for the inanities in the week’s reporting of what was a very complex discussion by a scholarly pope concerning faith and reason in Christianity and in Islam. As you know by now, the pope quoted a 14th-century Byzantine whose millennial empire had been reduced to mere acres and whose people had been dispatched by the hundreds of thousands by Islamic armies who thought death was a suitable end for unrepentant infidels. The emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, ventured to a visiting Persian that surely there must be a better way to do missionary work. Somehow a graduate of JOM926 got hold of the pope’s speech, and that was all it took.Full article
Oh, dear. My archbishop has committed a bit of a faux pas: starting a blog, and a bit awkwardly.
Good evening.
I’m sure your day has been just as full as mine. I began my day by celebrating mass at the Cathedral Rectory Chapel at 7:30 this morning and had a productive meeting with the Presbyteral Council from 10:30 until 2:00 this afternoon.
Well, at least we know it's authentic, then. (And yes, I checked, the domain name does belong to the Archdiocese.)
Anyway, welcome to the Catholic blogosphere, your M&Ms!
Don Marco reminds us of Pope St. Leo XIII's prayer consecrating the Muslims and all the erring people of the world, along with all the faithful, to the Heart of Jesus.
I'm still jet-lagged from a trip, and there's not enough time to write more thoroughly, so here are some fragments:
• The full text of the Pope's apology reveals that the Pope has not recanted that part of his speech -- that "for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." If journalists had bothered to read the full text -- well, they wouldn't have understood it anyway, so the point is moot. But assuming they weren't so lazy, or so ignorant of the philosophical context of the Pope's remarks, that is far more pointed than an intemperate quotation from a Byzantine emperor. It says that Islam downplays the intellect of God in favor of the will of God, while Greek philosophy and Christian philosophy acknowledge the importance of both. That is a crucial departure between the two religions, and it is telling that no Muslims, so far as I can tell, have objected to it.
• At a protest outside Westminster Cathedral in London, Muslims issued veiled threats against Pope Benedict's life, and spouted blasphemies against Jesus. (So much for "respectful dialogue.")
• TigerHawk sounds one of my regular themes, that "liberals, such as the editors of the New York Times, refuse to condemn them because they believe that Muslims are incapable of choices. I may deplore the choices of these rioting Muslims, but the New York Times holds them in contempt, regarding them as nothing more than wild animals." TigerHawk refers to the New York Times editorial chastising the Holy Father for "sow[ing] pain" among tender-hearted Muslims.
• Speaking of the NYT, their contemptible editorial deserves a little more attention. "The Vatican issued a statement saying that Benedict meant no offense and in fact desired dialogue," the editors intone. "But this is not the first time the pope has fomented discord between Christians and Muslims." According to Merriam-Webster, foment means "to promote the growth or development of: ROUSE, INCITE; 'foment a rebellion'." The editors are thus plainly stating that the Holy Father deliberately promoted discord ("active quarreling or conflict"). By misinterpreting the Pope's words as deliberately offensive, aren't the editors guilty of the same crime?
• If you have not already done it, read the Pope's original speech so you can see it in context.
What on earth is going on with the new administrator of Holy Trinity Parish in Boston?
Twice in a month, he's replaced the Tridentine Mass Sunday at noon -- the only such Mass in the Boston archdiocese -- with an English Mass in the new rite, due to "scheduling errors".
In the first case, the priest scheduled to celebrate the Sunday Mass did not arrive at the church at the appointed time, and a call to his rectory brought back the report that he was out of town. The administrator apologized and had a substitute offer Mass according to the new rite. But he (lacking any understanding of traditionalist issues) did so entirely in English, using the free-standing altar, facing versus populum, not using the Roman Canon. What a missed opportunity.
This past Sunday, the administrator knew a day in advance that he had a scheduling problem. Word reached parishioners, and half the congregation went to Mass elsewhere: that is, those who went at all.
If people have a choice between driving an hour for a reliable old-rite Mass in the next diocese and driving an hour for an unreliable one, they will choose the reliable one.
For over fifteen years, Holy Trinity parish has fulfilled its role of bringing about the reconciliation of disaffected traditionalist Catholics. Provoking the faithful of that parish to mistrust their pastor and - dare I say - their bishop gravely harms that mission.
Furthermore, there are now even more illicit Latin Mass groups operating in the city of Boston than there were fifteen years ago -- some of them openly sedevacantist schismatics. This is not a time to fall down on the Archdiocese's commitments to the Latin Mass community in Boston.
Islamofascism is on the march around the world, which gives Islam itself the appearance of strength and power. (No, I do not equate Islam with the ideology of the Islamofascists, though they share many of the same basic errors and malign tendencies.) But the furor over the Pope quoting a Byzantine emperor's undiplomatic comments about jihad reveals the true state of Islam today.
I agree with Mark Shea on this one: Islam is superficially strong, because many of its adherents carry out horrific violence in its name. With Belloc, I observe that Muslims are largely impervious to conversion -- and today, they are seemingly unwilling to carry out anything like a dialogue. But neither of these things are indications of real strength. If they were truly strong, they would have the self-confidence to shrug off comments that they with which they disagreed, or that were blantantly offensive (and the Pope's remarks were not.)
Instead, as if on cue, Muslims explode into intemperate rage when something offends their delicate sensibilities. But why are they so worred about what non-Muslims say about Islam, when so many of their own brethren say much worse? Islamfascists equate Islam with murder, forced conversion, political oppression, and even genocide, and it's business as usual. Maybe Muslims should spend more time and energy refuting them, if they're looking to preserve the good name of Islam and its "prophet."
But how does one have a dialogue when the other party reserves the right to fly off into a self-righteous rage when they hear something the least bit offensive? I don't doubt that there are Muslims in the world who can discuss their faith rationally, but when I've attempted it, I always get the same reaction, which is more or less, "You have to accept Islam before you understand it." Maybe so, but why would I want to accept something that I don't understand? And how can I understand if you won't appeal to my intellect?
Good luck, Holy Father, in your efforts to promote dialogue with the Islamic world. They don't seem the least bit interested, but God can find avenues that are invisible to the naked eye. The alternative -- decades, if not centuries, of conflict and unrest -- makes it worthwhile.
The media uses the word firestorm in 3 ways:
1. Literal firestorm, e.g. "The river valley erupted in a firestorm this afternoon, destroying 300 acres of national forest in just 2 hours."
2. Political trouble, e.g. "Senator Smith's on-air comments sparked a firestorm of criticism"
3. When Muslim's get offended. Which can happen on days that end with Y. And in the a.m. And in the p.m. Just about anywhere that comments or situations get taken out of content.
And the priceless quote of the day:
"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence," [Pakistan's] Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.
Fr. Sibley asked me today if I knew anything about the phony mystic Christina Gallagher of Ireland, so I checked around the net to find out whether her bishop had made any statement about her claims of messages from our Lord and our Lady. Now that she's opened a new branch operation in Texas, I suppose we may be hearing more of this.
As it happens, Mrs. Gallagher's from the Archdiocese of Tuam, and the archbishop there has been fairly circumspect, aiming to keep her activities within the modest limits his predecessor permitted, while not banning them outright.
December 1997:
Archdiocesan committee finds no proof of supernatural phenomena.
Abp. sets conditions for establishing a Private Association to bring her activities under closer archdiocesan supervision, including financial.
January 1998:
Bishop orders that confessions and sermons at the House of Prayer cease.
May 1998:
Sunday Masses at her House of Prayer on Achill Island are stopped, though not all Masses.
July 1998:
Gallagher announces she's closing the House; local tourism businesses complain.
Archbishop surprised by closure announcement.
August 1998:
Rick Salbato's newsletter on the closure and Mrs. Gallagher's lifestyle.
September 1998:
House to reopen, Gallagher promises compliance.
September 2002:
Interview, photos: 1, 2
(I tend to believe that real seers don't give interviews, let alone whine like this one.)
July 2003:
10th anniversary gathering.
June 2006:
Austin, TX bishop warns of "House of Prayer" opening without permission, denies faculties to priest supporter.
September 2006:
Layman Ron Conte (FL) points out theological errors, bizarre statements.
Of course, it's harder to do something more bizarre than making a supposedly Catholic religious medal that calls our Lady "The Matrix".
From this article about yesterday's activities on the B16 Bavarian Victory Tour:
"In an organ, the many pipes and voices must form a unity," said Benedict, himself an accomplished pianist. "If here or there something becomes blocked, if one pipe is out of tune, this may at first be perceptible only to a trained ear.Translation for the folk group members out there:"But if more pipes are out of tune, dissonance ensues and the result is unbearable. Also, the pipes of an organ are exposed to variations of temperature and subject to wear.
"This is an image of our community. Just as in an organ, an expert hand must constantly bring disharmony back to consonance," he said.
You know how Bobby can't seem to tune his E string right? Well... it sounds bad. And you don't want bad sound on things like "On Eagle's Wings."
MEMRI has compiled a publication and documentary of Arab and Iranian media coverage of the 9/11 attacks.
It's named after the northern Ontario community where it's located, but still....
Nearly everyone who lives in DC has been to the National Cathedral. My high school used to have it's baccalaureate there, and the choir got to sing from the normal place behind the sanctuary. Even if the speeches were boring, you could still sit there and marvel at the beauty of the place.
So with that experience in mind: there's something very disheartening about seeing the former president of Iran speaking from a pulpit at there. And I'm hardpressed to think about what anyone at the Cathedral would think could be gained by this.
See for yourself:
The editor of Le Monde diplomatique complains because international observers are not accusing Mexican officials of vote fraud. Normally, when international observers watch an election and don't protest, then one is left with the impression they didn't find anything major to protest about. But for Mr. Ramonet and the Mexican Left, the existence of massive fraud must not be questioned. Foreigners' silence only means that they are part of the American hegemony that gives victories to "the ruling Catholic rightwing National Action party (PAN)" (boo, hiss).
Your piece about ex-Catholics who formally withdraw from church membership referred to the act as being "debaptised". It even spoke misleadingly of a "debaptismal certificate", as if the Church were agreeing to cancel someone's baptism. The Church has no such procedure. Baptism is a permanent fact, according to Catholic teaching, and cannot be undone, even if a person leaves the Church. I expect the reporter used this terminology in order to shock listeners and get attention, but it was quite wrong. Did your reporter realize that she was misrepresenting the facts? It only adds to the existing impression that BBC is hostile to the Catholic faith.
Don Marco (Fr. Mark Daniel Kirby) is a Cistercian monk of the Abbey of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem in Rome, and chaplain to the Benedictines of Jesus Crucified in Branford, CT. Readers of Fr. Keyes' blog will already be familiar with Don Marco, as his homilies have been posted there already from time to time.
His weblog takes as its theme The Face of Christ. Welcome aboard!
Invest in us! Our stock price has been sagging, but we've got a new way to get into federally funded re$earch! We'll be willing to use our new technique in the future and avoid killing any embryonic people. At least on federally funded projects.
Oh, sorry: was there some confusion? We haven't really stopped killing embryonic human beings yet; not while we were trying out our new method, but we could! If there's money in it! And we think it'll be far less deadly than what we do now!
Oh, and: sorry if anyone lost money over that false impression people got from our publicity article. Oops!
We're bracing ourself for rain, wind, & exaggerated media reports of the storm-induced mayhem coming from our amigo Ernesto. I had to cut the dog walk short today for fear of turning a happy, dry dog into a stinky, wet dog.
Anytime you see pictures of flooding - just remember these 15 seconds of classic NBC morning TV. The Newsbusters story is here.
