News Clips: November 2005 Archives

Fr. John Harvey, director of Courage International, a support group for men and women with same-sex attractions who wish to live chastely according to Church teachings, made some good comments on the recent instruction about homosexuals and the priesthood. He says he is glad because it doesn't try to answer every question, and was hoping it would not be a categorical exclusion. I would agree with his assessment. Anyway, if you're at all interested in the topic, it's worth a read.

(Thanks to RC)

According to this article from The Times (that's THE Times), a commission that the Pope commissioned to come up with a “more coherent and illuminating” doctrine than limbo will recommand that Limbo be replaced by the more “compassionate” doctrine that all children who die do so “in the hope of eternal salvation”.

I think there is a lot of confusion about limbo that deserves to be addressed. First of all, it was never a "fourth state" besides heaven, hell, and purgatory. Limbo is and always has been a part of hell. A comparatively pleasant part of hell (so they speculated), mind you, but a part of hell, nonetheless.

It comes from the question of, if all men are fallen, and in need of salvation (which normatively speaking begins with baptism), what happens with babies who have no actual sin (i.e. sins committed by an act, as opposed to original sin), but die without baptism in the state of original sin (that is, separated from God)?

I think the situation of babies who would have been baptized but died before their parents had the chance to is fairly clear — what we have here is baptism by desire, same as if a catechumen dies.

Murkier is the situation where a child, say born into a non-religious family, dies before the age of reason. At one point, the general consensus was that such a child dies in the state of original sin, and if you die in the state of original sin, it's an article of faith that you go straight to Hell.

The church is now being more nuanced about it, saying that we merely "commend them to the mercy of God." Certainly, it is possible for God to work outside the confines of the sacraments. Having a well-founded hope that he does as a general case is another issue. There is nothing wrong with commending such children to the mercy of God, as it goes, and we ought to do so. But let's not forget that such mercy would be extraordinary, and not assume it's a given.

By the way, some fundamentalists and Evangelicals, surprisingly enough, do not believe in Original Sin in this sense that all men are implicated in the guilt of Adam. They believe that men are fallen, yes, in the sense that they cannot not sin, but they do not believe that children under the age of reason are in need of salvation. For them, having committed no sin means they do not need salvation. Hence for them, every child that dies under the age of reason goes to heaven automatically.

Witchcraft is moving into the mainstream in the Netherlands, according to ZENIT. Recently the courts ruled you could take a tax deduction for Wiccan training (which in one case run $2,600 for a course). In England, a prison hired a pagan chaplain, and is allowing them to use wine, wands, robes, incense, and jewelry.

Genuine spiritual hunger is apparently driving these people to paganism (not to mention a distaste for organized religions and established churches).

The article describes some of the basics of witchcraft, and the draw to a religion that is more earth-based and tied to nature. However, claims that the religion is "ancient" are disputed by some; Wiccans hearked back to a "matriarchical society" that probably never existed, and many rituals and spells date back no earlier than 1900 to Aleister Crowley and Gerald Gardner (making it, ironically, a modern male invention).

I am pleased to see a pope who takes a stand on such things. The Pope has banned a singer who praised the use of condoms. If that sounds benign, she had the chuzpah to plan to present him with a book containing a condom.
 
 

The pope has made an unprecedented move to rein in Assisi's Franciscans. The Franciscans, who guard the body of St. Francis, had been granted a large measure of autonomy by Paul VI, but of late had flaunted their involvement in left-wing causes and dabbled in syncretism. The local bishop never knew what they were doing and this caused him much grief and difficulty. Now, they are under his authority, and also under the authority of a special Cardinal in the Curia and the head of the Italian bishop's conference.

It sounds like it was a long-overdue move (John Paul apparently favored them) and I'm delighted to see the Pope cleaning house.

The new document on gays and seminary is coming out next Wednesday. (The article is dated November 12th, but what it reports is consistent with secular news articles recently published, and I was just so disgusted with the secular articles I wanted to offer a Catholic one.) Anyway, the upshot is that the softer language stayed: the ban only applies to those 1) in the lifestyle recently; 2) with deep-rooted tendencies; or 3) who promote the lifestyle. I for one am happy that the language has been softened, I think it will serve the church better. It is possible to have a modest degree of same-sex attraction and serve the church well.

The edits should be behind us (the news reports I haven't linked to say the Pope has signed off on it). There should be no surprises next Wednesday.

The entertainment world has taken another small but significant step toward normalization of homosexual conduct. Filmmaker Ang Lee (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) has released a new film about a homosexual dalliance, Newsweek reports. It's called "Broke back (except it's one word) Mountain" starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger, and it's based on "Pulitzer Prize-winning" author Annie Proulx's ("The Shipping News") short story. It's a story about a cowboy and a ranch hand who become friends, first, then slowly fall in love one summer when they are working together. As they separate, they realize how strongly they feel for one another, but decide to get married (to women, that is; have to qualify that here in good ol' Mass.) and have children. And live happily ever after! Don't you wish. No, they reach a "devastating conclusion", apparently due to "years of repression".

Newsweek gushes breathlessly that "No American film before has portrayed love between two men as something this pure and sacred." They add, "As such, it has the potential to change the national conversation and to challenge people's ideas about the value and validity of same-sex relationships." That much is true, lamentably.

How explicit is it? Ok, I'm warning you, the following is not something you're going to like: "The kissing and the sex scenes are fierce and full-blooded." Mmmmm. Time to test American's tolerance for actually looking at what gays do instead of merely politely acknowledging their rights, which doesn't hit as close to home. Alas, I have little hope that America will persevere in resisting on this point.

Now I am not a film geek, so I have little idea how close this movie is to being mainstream. The film company is Focus Features, and I see a film festival mentioned, so I'm guessing it's an independent film; so I suspect it will not play at your local AMC Cinema (though I have heard reports to the contrary). If not, we can all (well, almost all) be thankful. Perhaps we should not be worried until such a movie does; for all I know it will remain in the ghetto of independent films. But I'm gonna keep a wary eye on it. It's obviously not the first independent film featuring a gay love affair, but the fact it was highlighted in Newsweek is already more attention than I want it to get.

Scientists have developed a first-trimester test for Down's Syndrome. It combines a blood test and ultrasound, so it's safer than traditional detection methods (although the test, if positive, is still followed up by tests with a small risk of miscarriage).

The "advantage" to such a test is that it permits easier abortions. Telling quote: "By the time you're 20 weeks pregnant, most women will be feeling fetal movement. We wouldn't want to underestimate the psychological or emotional difficulty of undergoing pregnancy termination that late," [Fergal D.] Malone [of the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin] said. "Also, at that point it's easy to tell by looking at the woman if she is pregnant. This way she can make her decision in utmost privacy." There ya go.

(Thanks to Caleb)

A German ministry has ruled that the Pope can keep his German passport (Germany does not allow dual citizenship). That's not why I wanted to post this, though. Apparently he will "probably" have to obtain a new passport "after changing his name", and the article notes that "Deutsche Welle said the new document would cost the pope approximately $30, but added that he would be able to pay with Vatican coins bearing his own profile." So cool!

I don't think though, despite reports of German government agencies spontaneously changing records to conform to his new name, that his legal name has changed. Benedict XVI is ... not sure what you'd call it, perhaps "official" name or ruling name, but he doesn't abandon his Christian name entirely. In fact the old rites for determining if a Pope is dead has the camerlingo calling the Pope by his baptismal name. So I don't know why the eagerness to update official documents.

An Assemblies of God pastor has decided to camp on the church's roof until they collect 500 turkeys for Thanksgiving (or until Friday, whatever comes first). As of Tuesday evening they had 182 turkeys. No online donation form, though.

(Ok, it's a slow blog day)

Wouldn't want to be this guy on Judgment Day!

...as soon as I endorse the guy, he goes and says something stupid. Or at least, something unprincipled. Alito, commenting on his 1985 statement of his "strongly held belief" that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," he now says two troubling things: One, that back then, he was an advocate seeking a job; and two, "I don't give heed to my personal views, what I do is interpret the law."

The first implies, of course, that he effectively lied, or at least was saying what he thought they wanted to hear to get a job. The second suggests that his own moral convictions don't play a role in the judgements he makes. That doesn't wash with me.

That being said, he's probably the best we can hope for. He certainly would be a help to the bench.

In the article, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a Judiciary Committee member, made a statement that for me, highlights the whole absurdity of Roe vs. Wade. He said, "The question is whether he will put his personal views aside as any judge should and base his rulings on what the Constitution says." How ironic, given that the Constitution, which says absolutely nothing even remotely related to abortion, was, in R. v. W., grossly misinterpreted by judges who manifestly did not put their personal views aside and instead imposed them on an unwilling nation. What unmitigated gall.

I'd like to ask him, "Do you think those who decided R. v. W. 'put their personal views aside' in making that ruling?" I would dearly love to see some respected legal scholar admit that Roe is a flawed ruling precisely because it was politically influenced and made an implausible stretch to reach its conclusions.

Ok, rant mode off ...

Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito is looking better and better every day. What a welcome change from Miers, even from Chief Justice Roberts. CNN has a pretty good article on him and his merits and qualifications. He's dispassionate, which is always good when executing justice. He looks at every angle and strives for objectivity. He's not partisan. All good characteristics. I think we have a winner, folks!

Michael Newdow, who filed suit to have the Pledge of Allegiance abolished due to its references to God, has filed suit to have "In God We Trust" struck from the currency. "Newdow said his efforts are not spurred by an atheistic agenda, but rather by a desire to see the government adhere to the U.S. Constitution." Of course the Constition spoke of "respecting an establishment of religion", not belief in God. There is a difference. The point was to prevent the establishment of a state church, as they saw in the Old Country. The government was to be neutral among churches — not completely areligious.

That being said, those who are crying loudest about "In God We Trust" ought to keep in mind that it was instituted in the 50s as a reaction against communism and doesn't go back to the Founding Fathers (though on some coins it does go back to 1908).

The American Family Association is sponsoring a petition to introduce a constitutional amendment to "guarantee the right to use and recite the motto and the Pledge of Allegiance." Frankly I don't think constitutional amendments should be wasted on such petty matters (even if there was a threat to the right to recite or use either of these, which I don't think there is — the question pertains to compelling others to recite or use them).

Archaeologists working working in Megiddo (yes, that's where Armageddon is) have discovered a heretofore-unknown mid-third to early-fourth century Christian church now believed to be the oldest church in the Holy Land.

Given the link to Armageddon, could this be a sign of The End?? Don't be preposterous. :-) But it's quite a find!

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that parents do not have a fundamental right to control when, where and how their children are taught about sex. The case involved a group of elementary school children that objected to the state coming in with a questionnaire for kids aged 7 to 10 asking them sexual questions (e.g., how often do you experience the notion of "can't stop thinking about sex" or "thinking about touching other people's private parts"). The judge ruled that "We further hold that a psychological survey is a reasonable state action pursuant to legitimate educational as well as health and welfare interests of the state."

Perhaps in theory that's true, but not all surveys are appropriate, and this one definitely is not.

How far will this go, with the judges usurping and trampling on the rights of parents?

An Italian Catholic weekly has caused a ruckus with an ad featuring a dirty, misty shower stall with a woman's nude rear end showing through.

I'm not quite sure what I think about this. I definitely don't have a reflexive reaction of "oh that's terrible." I think that's something that, in any other context, I probably wouldn't even notice. It does sound like a rather odd ad to put in a Catholic magazine. And I have to admit that, thinking about it, a bare bottom could stir up someone's ardor — and that is the measure, to me, of whether a particular image is obscene or not, loosely speaking. On the other hand it doesn't sound like it was intended to incite lust, and that, according to Pope John Paul, is a key element. If I were to hazard a judgment, I'd probably say it was a bad idea but not obscene. What do you think?

In a move sure to infurate the right-wing Traditionalists, Pope Benedict Sunday urged the faithful to re-read the documents of Vatican II, saying that they are of "great relevance" today, and specifically identifying the document on education and the one on relationships with Jews and Muslims, Nostra Aetate. But I applaud his exhortation, a least as it pertains to the documents in general. They are in fact still relevant today, and there is much good in them. They simply must be read within the proper context, that is, the tradition of the Church, not the cultural milieu of the 60s. I remember when I first read the documents of Vatican II and saw that they urged that Latin be retained in the liturgy and urged that Evening Prayer be celebrated weekly in every parish. So much attributed to Vatican II wasn't really in there. So if you've never read Lumen Gentium, Dei Verbum, Sacrosantum Concilium or other documents, give them a read.