Two requests made by lesbian parents in Denver and Boston to send their kids to Catholic Schools have turned heads in the past month. Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley admitted the petitioning student, citing that the purpose of Catholic teaching has always been the children.
On the other side of the coin, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput requested that two girls not not renew their attendance in the next year because of their parents' lesbian relationship. Advocacy circles on all sides of the debate, from LGTB rights groups to Protestant pastors have commented in the press.
Chaput's decision seems heavy handed in this situation, but he took reasonable pastoral actions to facilitate the school. How genuine can the lesbian parents' actions be, when they attempt to give the children for which they care a Catholic Education, while living and unapologetically non-catholic lifestyle? In Catholic teaching, via Cannon Law (Can. 796 ß2), procreating and teaching children is primarily the parents' responsibility, and secondarily the school's. Chaput, as the head the of school, understandably must not react well to someone who, in a Catholic view, is not taking their primary responsibility seriously.
One might contend with Chaput's decision by saying that all the parents in that school and everywhere are imperfect, so why single out homosexuals? What about those who are cohabitating, of which there must be many. I believe Chaput would react similarly to those who actively intend to go against the teachings of the Church, thus implying or outright saying those teachings are wrong, and pursuantly disrupting the Parent - School - Child relationship. For instance, if a parent wrote an article in the paper claiming that marriage is no longer needed, Chaput would and should have the right to, at the least, confront that parent and question whether they truly desire a Catholic education for their child.
Many times in life, one can be wrong, even for all the right reasons. Chaput may be this type of wrong. The institution of the Catholic Church exists, among other reasons, but, principally for the communion of humanity with our Lord Jesus Christ, and the proselytization of that eucharist. Are we to deny these children a chance at such a relationship because of their parent's folly?
The homosexual parents on the other hand are right, even with some wrong reasoning. They are disrespecting the Church and its teachings, as well as the school-child-parent relationship. But in the end, they are giving their kids a chance at a connection with God and his Church.
--------------- 1096-1099 AD The First Crusade --------------- Part II
After the first 'people's army' aimlessly pillaged and made more enemies than converts, they were easily destroyed by the Turks. Later troops found safe harbor with Alexius and the Greek Right, which had been separate from the Latin right for fifty years. Alexius eventually saw the crusades as advantageous, because of common enemies, and because most of the crusading princes swore to return captured land to the Byzantine Empire.
The first city captured was Nicea, which had mostly Christians living there, but was controlled benevolently by Muslims. It fell even though it had 240 towers and four miles of wall. The region was return to Byzantine control.
Not all conquests were that successful or loyal. After Baldwin of Boulogne captured the city of Edessa from the Turks, he did not return it to Alexius; instead claiming himself to be the Count of Edessa and entering into treaties with local Muslims and Christians to assure his staying power.
The next acquisition was Antioch, which was a symbolic capture, as St. Peter had established the it to be a bishopric. They laid siege to the city for months and eventually bribed a Turkish soldier to give enterance during the night. All of the Turks were massacred and their homes were razed, including some Christians'. The crusading leader, Peter Bartholomew, claimed to see "visions" of Saints who told him to keep Antioch in Latin possession. After the Papal envoy died, who favored returning the city to Alexius, another crusader declared himself Prince of Antioch, because Bartholomew had died at his own hand.
Geographically, the subsequent and largest prize was Jerusalem. They city was controlled by the Egyptians, who had expelled all Christians from the city and hired scores of mercenaries from Africa in pretense to its defense. Around 1400 knights and 12,000 infantry laid siege the city, which meant that they prevented food, water, communication from entering it, and killed anyone attempting to leave it. They also may have used siege weapons like a catapult to take down towers that would slaughter any attackers. The army prayed and fasted for six weeks, asking for divine help in the siege. After that period, they constructed two large siege engines - which would help the men over the walls - and occupied the city. The crusaders massacred not only Muslims, but Jews still in the city in a fit of antisemitism.
Most crusaders returned home after Jerusalem to place the palm fronds from the region on their parish altar, as evidence that their vow was fulfilled. Almost none returned home rich, and some turned to priesthood or worked in the church upon reaching home.
Many cities were captured, from Edessa to Tripoli, but all them were isolated from each other and were open to retribution. As such, the crusaders who remained to bolster latin-christian life, eventually drafted Muslim alliances in order to procure protection from other Muslims or new crusading armies.
The Crusades are a part of Catholic history. Some parts of that rich history are not events in which one can be completely proud. It is important to remember them, however, because they define who we are as Catholics, as they depict from where we started, and point to where we are going. Our history needs to be memorialized; positive parts as blueprints for replication and negative ones as lessons already learned. According to historian Keith Lewis, "One can neither dismiss these 'armed pilgrimages' as pure secular ventures nor praise them as wholly religious. Similarly, it would be simplistic to condemn crusaders categorically because of the excesses of materials of some of the more powerful and influential among them." T.S. Elliot similarly remarks that there were, "a few good men, many who were evil, and most who were neither, like all men in all places."
A Sincere Thank Your to Keith Lewis for writing "The Catholic Church in History"
Mission: Joan, at the age of 13, heard the voices of and saw St. Michael, St. Margaret, St. Catherine, as well as God. These voices told her to see that the Dauphin was crowned at Rheims and to deliver France from her enemies. After finally convincing the Dauphin, she was given a white suit of armor and a small axe. She proved to be an able commander, leading France to victory at Orleans and many others until the Dauphin was crowned as Charles the V. Joan was later caught by the Burgundians and burned as a witch in 1431, in a trial not constituted by the Pope.
Feast Day: 30 May
Patroness: Soldiers, France
Miracles: Jumped from a high tower in castle of the Luxembourgs and was unharmed, she knew the exact position where an ancient sword was buried, won military battles over an empire with no training or education at all. She was canonized in the 20th century, but the church could not validate the three miracles needed, because of time and legend. The three miracles that were accepted for her were ones of intercession.
When the US was a fledgling power, struggling to congeal a proper governance, John Jay wrote the first four articles of what is now known as the Federalist papers.His arguments for a unified and central government when speaking of the thirteen separate states are useful in the debate for the formation of one unified church.The reasons he lists why the states needed to unite - internal order, efficiency, defense – are powerful arguments for the unification of the many states of Christianity that exist today.
------------------------------------
In his third article Jay writes, “The number of wars which have happened or will happen in the world will always be found to be in proportion to the number and weight of the causes, whether REAL or PRETENDED, which PROVOKE or INVITE them. If this remark be just, it becomes useful to inquire whether so many JUST causes of war are likely to be given by UNITED AMERICA as by DISUNITED America; for if it should turn out that United America will probably give the fewest, then it will follow that in this respect the Union tends most to preserve the people in a state of peace with other nations.”
Jay implies that unity will demand less causes of conflict by its very nature. If one examines that lesson through a religious lens, the result is no different.Disagreements in the past have already broke the church apart. Those schisms have lead to many more disagreements, that wouldn’t have otherwise existed. By division’s very nature, the notion of having separate churches that don’t struggle is impossible because of the “weights and causes” that arise from separation.Struggle doesn’t mean raising armies and battle on the field as it once may have.Today’s struggle is fought in the media, is fought in the minds of non-believers, and is fought on the battlefield of good deeds, where there should be no losers.
-------------------------------------------
Jay further writes in the third article, “The neighborhood of Spanish and British territories, bordering on some States and not on others, naturally confines the causes of quarrel more immediately to the borderers. The bordering States, if any, will be those who, under the impulse of sudden irritation, and a quick sense of apparent interest or injury, will be most likely, by direct violence, to excite war with these nations; and nothing can so effectually obviate that danger as a national government, whose wisdom and prudence will not be diminished by the passions which actuate the parties immediately interested.”
Jay asserts that it is difficult for a state to be immoderate or extremist when balanced by a larger population and the checks of such governments.He is proven right, of course, when the nation eventually fights the Civil War.In a religious scope, one sees that some denominations, either separated from the Catholic Church or congealed separately, will go rogue from conventional Christian beliefs and even find new extremes in comparison to Protestant belief.This point brings to mind Fred Phelps from the WestboroBaptistChurch, who chooses to display signs at the funerals of veterans which read, "God hates fags.” Where is the oversight, power structure, wisdom and tradition in his church to prevent such action?A less obvious but just as applicable example is Lutheran denominations who ordain openly homosexual priests.
-------------------------------------------
In the fourth article he writes, “One government can collect and avail itself of the talents and experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may be found. It can move on uniform principles of policy. It can harmonize, assimilate, and protect the several parts and members, and extend the benefit of its foresight and precautions to each. In the formation of treaties, it will regard the interest of the whole, and the particular interests of the parts as connected with that of the whole. It can apply the resources and power of the whole to the defense of any particular part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State governments or separate confederacies can possibly do, for want of concert and unity of system.”
Jay is speaking of the marginal efficiencies that come from reducing the power structures from thirteen to one.“Uniform principles and policies” are important to a religion, because just as a state, these will “harmonize, assimilate and protect” the whole body of believers, and prevent further destructive dismantling.(I will speak about this principle more in an upcoming post)Religious “treaties” ecumenically translate into relationships with the secular world.Having one true church will ensure that it will “regard the interest of the whole,” and not be preoccupied with trying to insist that it is the one true form of Christianity instead of the myriad other contenders.
-------------------------------------------
Jay further explains in his fourth penning, “The people of America are aware that inducements to war may arise out of these circumstances, as well as from others not so obvious at present, and that whenever such inducements may find fit time and opportunity for operation, pretenses to color and justify them will not be wanting. Wisely, therefore, do they consider union and a good national government as necessary to put and keep them in SUCH A SITUATION as, instead of INVITING war, will tend to repress and discourage it. That situation consists in the best possible state of defense, and necessarily depends on the government, the arms, and the resources of the country.”
The founding father reveals that unification not only discourages war internally, but externally as well.In religious sense, having separated church structures will bear the same fruit.Why not attack the fifteen largest Church in the media?For that matter, why not attack the largest Church, the Catholic one?In the eyes of an onlooker, it is only 1 of 216 Christian options, similar to the cereal isle.If secular culture attacks one denomination, how and when do the other divisions of Christianity reply? Sadly, they often do not, and in most cases likely approve of the attack for their own vindication.
-------------------------------------------
This essay is the first in a series slotted to explain the benefits of the reunification of all denominations of Christianity into one church, and why that church should be the Roman Catholic order.
In the beginning of May, two to three Bishops from the Church of England flew to Vatican City to open talks of conversion. According to the AP, two of bishops said they were speaking about the Holy Father's invitation to disgruntled Anglicans to join Catholicism, and his clearing the path to do so easier. Such a decision is part of a larger effort by the Holy See to bring back denominations that previously left the faith.
For decades the two groups have held talks. This turn is brightened by the fact that the Anglican Church as admitted gay and female priests, which has almost led to a split in that denomination. The Anglicans making the trip were Rev. Andrew Burnham, the bishop of Ebbsfleet, Rev. John Broadhurst, the bishop of Fulham, and Rev. Keith Newton, the bishop of Richborough. They met members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the bulwark of the Vatican's departments, which enforces doctrine.
Newton said the trip consisted of ''nothing more than exploratory talks." Neither church will make public comments, likely an effort not to inflame the anger of those who would not want a reunification.
If those breaking from the Anglicans were to join the Catholic faith, there would be little change for them, aside from recognizing the Pope as God's representative on Earth. In fact, the Vatican has compromised by allowing a married priest in defecting Aglican bodies to remain married (Bishops could not). What is known as the Anglican Church has been in communion with Rome longer (from 597 to 1535) than it has not, making the absence of 450 years a bit shorter than expected.
First of all, let us look at written law on the subject. The Bible does not mention any rules on rosaries. The Code of Canon Law, however, states:
"Sacred objects, set aside for divine worship by dedication or blessing, are to be treated with reverence. They are not to be made over to secular or inappropriate use, even though they may belong to private persons" (CIC 1171).
The important term being "reverence," which is defined as "a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration." The definition of jewelry is an "any ornaments for personal adornment or attractiveness." By these definitions, I do not believe that one can wear something for both personal adornment and reverence. For example, the picture above shows a lady wearing a rosary. It is clear by her attire that she is not treating the Rosary with reverence. This is similar to the images released of Madonna (singer) wearing a Rosary.
I believe there is room to wear a Rosary around your neck without violating the spirit of 1171. Nuns and monks often wear Rosaries around their belts, so there is precedent to have a Rosary adorned to one's person. If a person wears it to aid in their prayer regiment, as a tool for proselytization, or for any other spiritual reason which aids in their faith, and that person does nothing to deter from that reason (like wearing racy clothes), then I believe that reverence can exist, without any entanglements of adornment.
-----------------------------
1096 Ad The First Crusade
-----------------------------
Part 1
Pilgrimage, Holy War, An Expedition of the Cross, the Business of Jesus Christ were euphemisms for what are commonly known as the crusades. The first crusade has been described as a violent and brutal episode that cut a swathe of suffering though Europe and Asia. At first, the crusade was a profoundly religious event. Urban II called on nobility to go to the east and help other Christians defend the attacks from Muslim Turks and to liberate the holy city of Jerusalem. At that point the Turks had taken northern Africa, part of Spain, Palestine, Syria and Jerusalem, and had even once sacked Rome.
How could a Pope enact a war? St. Augustine's guidelines on justified violence determined that it was a greater evil to always resist violence. A Christian could engage in war if it had a just cause, waged under due authority, and the combatant had the right intentions. Pope Alexander created for himself two decades earlier what we would call the secret service or musketeers, called the Faithful of St. Peter. Pope Urban II applied these concepts formally and broadly.
The promise of salvation made staffing the effort an easier task. Many nobles had fought in wars against Christians and welcomed an act of self-sanctification. Those who left were to be relieved of all penance for their sins when making a genuine and full confession.
Nobility were not the only crusaders.Even though the Pope discouraged and in some cases forbade it, often monks, women without husbands, wives of crusaders, elderly, and those in legal trouble pledged for the foreseen benefits. In total, there were around 25,000 people in the organized, church sanctioned effort.
A crusader would vow before a priest or bishop, get permission from his wife, and sew a red cross into his clothing, identifying him as one of the cruce signati.He would face excommunication and outlaw status if he removed the cross before he fulfilled his vow of praying at the Holy Sepulcher and returning home.In fact, if a man died, his son would inherit the vow.
Although the stereotype exists that crusaders were colonizers who went to gain land and wealth, and in some cases that did happen,most if not all knights had to raise four times their income and in that process sold off their lands in order to go.
Thanks to Keith Lewis for writing "The Catholic Church in History"
Born: 16th Century Lived: Basque Region, Spain Work: Professor of Logic and Metaphysics, University of Paris One of the first Missionaries to the India, Japan, China One of the First Jesuits Feast Day: 3 December Patron: Saint of Roman Catholic Missionaries Miracles: Ability to Levitate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bObItmxAGc (this video may be offensive)
Silverman put out this video on youtube prior to an appearance on HBO's Real World with Bill Maher and ABC's The View, when she was able to present her opinions as actual intellect. In the video, she asserts that the Pope sell Vatican City to feed the world's poor people.
---------------------------------------------------------------- 1: One could make that assertion about any institution. Why not sell Washington DC? Why not sell Bill Gate's assets? Why not sell the country of Guatemala? All of these scenarios present the same fallacies. Foremost, the solution would be short term at best. Poor people would be fed for a small period of time, money would run out eventually, and people would again be hungry. Secondly, there is not a market for these things. Who is going to buy St. Peter's Basilica?
2: The very idiotic part of her rant is that of all the institutions she could have chose in the world, she chose the very one that feeds the most hungry, by far, The Catholic Church. In the time it would take to sell off parts of the Vatican (worth $900 million in land holdings), and arrange to feed the poor, following to the time that such monies would run out, the Catholic Church will have fed the amount of people she aims to feed - because of the inefficiencies in such a plan - and the church would still be around to do it again.
3: In trying to synthesize the church's hypocrisy, she illuminates her own. What has she sold for the poor? How many profits from movies and television has she given to the hungry?
4: She infers that the Pope does not live humbly because he lives in his own city, and the Vatican is apparently rich. In actuality, the church has run deficits in the last two years of about 1 million dollars.
5: The Church was not involved in the holocaust.... except for the fact that it helped to hide Jews from death while European governments looked the other way.
In his syndicated radio show on April 25th, Dr. Edell took a few minutes to criticize pro life pharmacies. He explains them as pharmacies whose owners do not offer birth control, alcohol, tobacco or pornography.
Edell inferred that the owners' faith obliged them not to sell birth control, and that local patrons were losing out on health care providence because of it. The Doctor also took the discussion to a broader theme by saying that conscience clauses could not co-exist with the Hippocratic oath.
1: Catholics are not obliged to refrain from selling birth control in order to be Catholic or morally just. They do, however, have the freedom to do so in order to find morality.
2: One pharmacy not selling prophylactics does not stop their proliferation to the public. Within a three mile radius of my home, in a town of 18,000, there is a grocery store, 2 pharmacies, 3 gas stations, a college campus, and two hospitals, all in which one could find condoms, some in which will give away condoms for free. If one pharmacy stopped selling condoms, not much would change, because it is a lucrative practice.
3: Conscience clauses only contradict a Hippocratic Oath if you only allow for one definition of well-being. A doctor would not go forward with treatment or prescribe a substance if she thought that the patient would be worse off. Some doctors see a different type of well-being, other than that of Dr. Edell, and simply cannot go forward. Most then send the patient somewhere else at that point. Too often this argument is framed in terms of personal choice, as if the treatment would be good for the patient, but the doctor just chooses not to administer it. Doctors who enact conscious clauses do so for the patient, out of the doctor's definition of well-being. As long as that definition is reasonable, then there is no contradiction.
We live in an over-sexed society. One cannot turn on the television or radio, pick up a magazine, or drive down a street without seeing sex used in adds to sell, or used in shows to create viewership. The pleasure aspect of sex is being camouflaged as its primary purpose for these ends, when in fact, procreation is its primary purpose. Having a baby doesn't sell furniture or beer, however. Some people are taking a stand on this trend, by not selling prophylactics or porn, because they believe, and rightfully so, that grossly misusing sex will only birth other problems, both moral or physical. ie Children being born into an incomplete family, born to parents who don't want them, or even worse, being deemed unwanted before birth and killed. Dr. Edell, you need not chastise these owners'. They may not be the complete solution to ails of our society, but they are the only candles in a dark, dark room.
"Apologetics 101" defends the faith in everyday conversation
"Catholiphone Alarm" sounds for baseless attacks on the Church
"The Throne of St. Peter" reports news from the Holy See
Compellation of the Saints with "Saint of the Dei"
Live the Church Saga with "2000 Years of Rich History from Jesus to JP2"
Read Series on the One True Church and Angels
"The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule... if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false." - St. Thomas Aquinas
Posts
