Asking for Bread

Cardinal Rigali slams bogus Kmiec claims

Kudos to Philadelphia’s Cardinal Justin Rigali for countering Doug Kmiec’s claims that the Obama administration can be called “Catholic-friendly.” (I recently commented on the Boston Pilot’s use of space for Kmiec’s propaganda.)

Apparently, Kmiec has a new column that claims Obama’s new embryonic stem-cell policies are an “ethically sensitive” improvement over the Bush policies.

Cardinal Rigali applies a hammer:

Law professor Douglas Kmiec states in an opinion piece distributed by Catholic News Service that the new policy is “ethically sensitive” and in important respects “more strict” than President George W. Bush’s policy that preceded it.

The truth is the opposite.

…

Kmiec says the new guidelines are limited to embryos created for fertility treatment that “would have been discarded if not devoted to medical research.”

That is also not true.

…

With all due respect to Kmiec, then, on this and other issues relating to the destruction of unborn human life, the federal government is not moving “in a noticeably more Catholic-friendly direction.” Nor is it moving in a human-friendly direction.

More details in Rigali’s article (here, via American Papist). It’s wonderful to see our bishops speaking out about this kind of deliberate misinformation, and not mincing words.

Now, if only Cardinal Rigali would address the fact that Kmiec’s column is syndicated by the Catholic News Service—an organ of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops….

Or is that scandal One That Must Not Be Named?

The “counter-magisterium”

OK; call me naive. When I first returned to the Church from very far away, I was surprised at how common “dissent” was among Catholics.

Not just among lay Catholics, either: nearly everyone I ran across—priests, nuns, religious educators, even bishops—had at least some disagreements with Church teaching. It made for odd bedfellows: here were people who rejected Church teaching, and yet they were openly teaching or writing “for” the Church.

I later learned that Pope John Paul II had a good term for this: the “counter-magisterium.”

And it turns out that the late Monsignor George Kelly wrote and spoke about this constantly. Here’s an important bit of his from 2002:

The most important and enduring scandal in the Catholic Church of the United States is the established and continued existence of what Pope John Paul II has called a “counter-magisterium”—a rival teaching office that confutes, confounds, and contradicts what the Pope and the bishops in union with him set forth as the Gospel of Jesus Christ regarding human beings, their destiny in this life and the next.

The #2 scandal is the downgrading of orthodoxy as an essential standard norm of Catholic belief, and the consequent downsizing of “right belief” as normative for teachers and pastors….

The scandal consists in the harm done to faith in Christ’s Church by the continued and unopposed power exercised by these anti-magisterial forces, which use Catholic colleges and schools, religious societies, and so-called pastoral entities in opposition to the settled mind and law of the Church.

This is a serious ongoing concern of mine, and a major theme in this blog: the fact that this “counter-magisterium” exists, is a significant force in the Church—and is often allowed to teach its unorthodox ideas to unsuspecting people.

You know: asking for bread, and getting stones instead….

Notre Dame update: Mary Ann Glendon turns down award

Yesterday I noted that the Boston Pilot published an opinion piece by John Kaneb, vice-chairman of the Archdiocese of Boston’s finance council, in which Kaneb called Notre Dame “a beacon of adherence to its Catholic character.” My comment was that Kaneb and the Pilot seemed oddly out of step in trying to justify Notre Dame’s plan to give President Obama an honorary law degree—as many orthodox bishops, priests and lay Catholics are rightly scandalized by Notre Dame’s move and have decried the university’s actions.

Today, the breaking news is that Mary Ann Glendon has just declined to accept Notre Dame’s prestigious Laetare Medal because of this Obama scandal. (See First Things and American Papist for coverage.)

First of all, kudos to Mary Ann Glendon. She’s been one of my heroes for years. This must have been a difficult decision, and I respect her even more for having made it.

Second, this is a huge development in the Notre Dame situation. As Fr. Raymond de Souza comments at NCRegister (via Thomas Peters @ American Papist):

The significance of Glendon’s refusal is enormous. The most accomplished Catholic laywoman in America — former ambassador of the United States to the Holy See and current president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences — has refused to accept Notre Dame’s highest honor. It is a signal moment for the Catholic Church in the United States. It is a signal moment for the Church’s public witness. It is may even be a signal moment for Notre Dame. What Glendon will not say at Notre Dame will finally be a fitting response to what Gov. Mario Cuomo said there some 25 years ago.

And third, aren’t the Pilot and the Archdiocese’s John Kaneb in an awkward situation right now? They tried to make believe everything was fine at Notre Dame… only to have a super-heavy-hitter like Mary Ann Glendon decline a prestigious award because of (in her words) “the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.”

“A beacon of adherence to its Catholic character.” Indeed.

The Pilot gives cover to Notre Dame

The Notre Dame / Obama scandal presents us with clear sides of a scandalous issue—and once again, the Boston Pilot is on the wrong side.

The Notre Dame scandal is so serious that, to date, at least 46 U.S. bishops have issued public statements criticizing the (allegedly) Catholic university’s move to honor Obama, the nation’s most aggressively pro-abortion President in history. Those bishops point out that Notre Dame has unequivocally violated the explicit instructions of the U.S. bishops conference (the USCCB) that Catholic schools should not honor pro-abortion public figures.

But the Pilot, official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston, gives space to an opinion piece by John Kaneb, vice-chairman of the Archdiocese of Boston’s finance council. Kaneb writes to “attest to the fact that the university is acknowledged as a beacon of adherence to its Catholic character.”

In contrast to both the Pilot and Kaneb, some bishops spoke clearly:

• Bishop D’Arcy of Notre Dame’s home diocese spoke of the “terrible breach which has taken place between Notre Dame and the Church.”
• Cardinal George, president of the USCCB, said “it is clear that Notre Dame didn’t understand what it means to be Catholic.“
• And Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln, NE, didn’t mince words: “Permit me to add my name… to the long list of Bishops of the Catholic Church who are utterly appalled at your dedication to immorality and wrong-doing…. [This is a] betrayal of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. I can assure you of my prayers for your conversion, and for the conversion of your formerly Catholic University.”

“A beacon of adherence”… indeed!

Should I be concerned that Kaneb is employed by the Archdiocese, yet seems inclined to defend actions that clearly violate both the moral law and the U.S. bishops’ own well-known regulations?

Remarkably, I haven’t seen any reports that Boston’s Cardinal O’Malley has commented on the Notre Dame scandal.

I see this incident as a part of a larger pattern in Boston, where the Pilot—and the Archdiocese—simply don’t want to admit that there is a problem in the first place.

Basic expectations

When I put my faith into someone’s hands—whether a priest’s, catechist’s or publisher’s—I have a few basic expectations that should be met.

These things also form the basic criteria I use when reviewing Catholic material. It’s the “contract” the material should live up to.

My experience is that a lot of people share these expectations.

So, dear catechists & publishers, here’s what we expect:

• Confirm our faith. Our faith is frequently assaulted these days; the pressure to just give in to the secular world is intense. Faith can be fragile, and we want to be reminded that it’s real. We want to know that faith matters; that knowing, loving and following Christ is possible; and that it’s more than possible— it’s the most important thing in the world. So, teachers, please demonstrate a faith that is not lukewarm, held at arm’s length, or academically sterile.
• Straight shooting. We expect to be told what the Church really teaches. (That’s why we’re coming to the Church & asking!)
• Basic fidelity. If faith is real, then the stakes are high. We look for you to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. So if you have serious issues with the Church, you shouldn’t be teaching.
• Integrity. The example you give speaks louder than your words. If you’re being tricky or less than forthcoming, why should we trust you with our faith?
• Good explanation & defense of hard teachings. We already have plenty of reasons to reject Church teaching. We’re coming to you because we want to hear an intelligent defense of those teachings.
• Tell us what’s baked, and what’s not. We know there are a lot of fancy theories out there, and we know there’s a lot of pressure on you to do what’s “current.” But if what you’re telling us is more trendy theory instead of perennial Catholic teaching— tell us that. The decision to accept or reject it is our decision, not yours.

Looking at that list, it’s really not much. In a word, I guess you could say that I just expect Catholic teaching to be, well… Catholic.

Boston Pilot provides soapbox for Doug Kmiec

A recent March issue of the Boston Pilot, official newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston, published a syndicated column by the infamous Doug Kmiec in its latest issue. (Kmiec’s column is not available online.)

For those who don’t know, Kmiec is one of the main point-men who aggressively argued that Catholics should vote for Obama. And he’s still pushing a strong pro-Obama line today, even after Obama’s long string of moves designed to radically advance the standing of the abortion industry & its lobby.

Kmiec’s main themes boil down to:

• Since Obama says he will help the poor, he is more pro-life (!) than politicians who oppose abortion. So you should support Obama.
• Abortion shouldn’t trump other important social issues like war, the death penalty, etc. So you should support Obama.

A number of U.S. bishops spoke out loudly to denounce Kmiec and the bogus arguments he was advancing to garner votes for Obama. (Briefly, the Church’s counter-argument is that because abortion is always wrong and is such a grave evil, it trumps the other current social concerns. Furthermore, it is ridiculous for a politician to claim he supports the poor when in fact he supports the intentional and widespread destruction of society’s most vulnerable poor— the innocent human lives taken in abortion.)

Kmiec has become widely reviled among both faithful Catholics and other pro-lifers because his actions are seen as deliberately trying to co-opt the Catholic and pro-life vote by spreading misinformation and false arguments in an attempt to enable fence-sitters to rationalize voting for Obama.

For example, Zenit reported that Denver’s (awesome) Archbishop Chaput had this to say about Kmiec in October 2008:

Archbishop Chaput said he thought Kmiec’s endorsement of Obama has “done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.”

Considering Kmiec’s widely-known background, exactly why does the Boston Pilot think it’s a good idea to give him space to spread his poison?

Cardinal Sean O’Malley is the Pilot’s publisher. I have to ask: Is he aware of what his own newspaper is publishing? And if O’Malley knows about it, why isn’t he publicly correcting the situation?

Amy on “post-Christian” women religious

The ever-readable Amy Welborn offers incisive commentary on an issue that’s a main theme here at “Asking for bread”: the abuse of trust & power by those who have de facto left the Church, but still insist on teaching in the name of the Church.

Her comments come in the context of the CDF’s doctrinal investigation of the Leadership Conference for Women Religious (with my emphasis and [my comments]):

So there you go. And I say…if you’re going to be Post-Christian, then be Post-Christian. I don’t say that with snark.  It’s just reality. If you’ve moved on…move on step out from the protective mantle of identity that gives you cachet: that of “Catholic nun.” [Exactly! This is about deception: pretending to be one thing, while actually being another.]

…My question is always about integrity and exploiting the  historical memory of the communities you serve and who support you to engage in agendas that actually betray that trust and are purely your own. To put it bluntly: I have worked with more than my share of religious women who, during John Paul II’s papacy repeatedly expressed their hope in diocesan-level meetings that the Pope would be dying soon and things would get better and that the Catechism was dangerous (”We don’t want people to get their hands on it, because then they’ll be comparing our programs to what’s in it”  - a quote.) [Talk about deliberate deception!], and then turned around and disparaged traditional devotions and the desire of parents that their children simply be taught the Church’s teachings in schools and religious ed programs.

[snip]

One could multiply examples - and expand the equation by adding laity and clergy to the list as well - all of us are tempted, when we’re given power, to make our agendas the focus, rather than serving the whole.

But my point is that what seems to be coming to a head is too many communities of religous women in this country playing both sides of the coin: Playing up their role and identity as Catholic sisters who did (indeed) contribute much to the growth of the Church in the United States and live a unique, consecrated life worthy of respect, but then seeking to remake the institution according to their own agenda - in a way that would probably horrify the women on whose laurels they rest and whose historical memory they are exploiting. [Excellent point: these people demand that we "respect" and "dialog" with their own viewpoints, and yet they show no respect for 2000 years of Catholic Tradition, nor for the women who founded & built up their orders, nor for the parents & children they claim to "serve".]

Well said.

Pope Benedict, part 2: solid formation for priests

I’ve already mentioned Pope Benedict’s address last month to the Congregation for the Clergy, but it’s so full of good stuff that I have to mention something else.

Again, using Fr. Z’s translation:

[Bishops must turn their attention] toward their first collaborators [e.g. priests], …concerning themselves with their continuing formation, above all in the matter of doctrine. The mission …[must emphasize] communion with the uninterrupted ecclesial Tradition, without breaks or temptations to discontinuity. In such a sense, it is important to foster in priests, above all in younger generations, a correct reception of the texts of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, interpreted in the light of the whole doctrinal train of of the Church.

This is a very clear, and very welcome statement in favor of solidifying the “hermeneutic of continuity” that has been a constant theme of Benedict’s pontificate.

It emphasizes:

• Priests are an essential foundation for the life of the Church.
• Sound doctrine is essential for priests.
• The hermeneutic of continuity is essential for sound doctrine.
• The need to correct years of bad formation.

All excellent stuff.

Pope Benedict: Church needs priests, not “new structures”

Pope Benedict addressed the Congregation for the Clergy last month, and made this point (via Fr. Z; my emphasis):

The centrality of Christ brings with itself the proper evaluation of the priestly ministry, without which there would be no Eucharist, nor, much less, the mission of the same Church. In this sense it is necessary to be vigilant that “new structures” or pastoral organizations are not considered for a time which one must “do without” ordained ministry, starting from the erroneous interpretation of a right promotion of the laity, for in such a case presuppositions would be advanced for the further dilution of the priestly ministry and the eventual presumed “solutions” would come dramatically to coincide with the real causes of the present challenges bound up with ministry.

In other words: preparing for “priestless parishes” is sure to bring about… priestless parishes.

Here in Boston, Cardinal O’Malley has been keen on preparing for priestless parishes. It seems that seminary resources are going to this effort, even going so far as to create a lay-focused school within the seminary to train “pastoral associates”.

Will O’Malley follow Benedict’s lead and change course, or will he continue to lead Boston in its current direction?

Pope Benedict’s statement seems to imply that, if Boston does not change, then this effort will be responsible for “the further dilution of the priestly ministry.” (Ditto for the many dioceses pursuing similar policies.)

The purpose of “Asking for bread”

“What man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?”
– Matthew 7:9-10

Ordinary Catholics around the world are simply “asking for bread.” We want to be fed with solid Catholic truth, whether it’s in the form of what the Church believes about Christ (i.e., her doctrine), the Mass, the Word of God in Scripture, or even just authentic Catholic spirituality.

But all too often, we’re given something else instead: stones instead of bread.

The purpose of this blog is to document some of this situation. I want to expose what’s happening, to hold it up to the light, and to analyze some of it– to connect some dots.

As a Catholic “revert” myself, I came back into the Church about 10 years ago. A number of wonderful people helped me come back, but I also saw a darker side of life in the Church: I was asking for bread, but I got a surprising number of stones.

Some of the time, people were well-meaning but had been badly formed themselves.

Other times, I got bad information from people who knew what they were doing. These were people who rejected Church teaching, and somehow thought it would be a good idea to teach in the name of the Church. They didn’t teach sound doctrine, but instead taught what they wanted Church doctrine to become. At their hands, students are tutored in a school of dissent.

This is a widespread problem.

You see the problem in poor catechesis, in “Catholic” books & periodicals that preach dissent, and in abuses of the Mass.

I hope to be one voice for change.