Cafeteria Cardinals

For years now we’ve heard the title “cafeteria Catholics” disgustedly hurled by the hierarchy as an epithet at thinking people of faith who discern the Spirit’s movement in the “signs of the times.” It seems the Vatican “administrators” might be guilty of a similar “picking and choosing” of tenets of belief regarding dialogue.

Of course, some may blatantly deny the major of Kevin Aschenbrenner’s NCR article about the Vatican and LCWR

http://ncronline.org/news/women-religious/vatican-lcwr-and-definitions-dialogue

by questioning whether Vatican policy really ever seeks dialogue at all with anyone who disagrees with its point of view.

That being said, the question arises about the “cafeteria cardinals” picking and choosing from among the documents of “Tradition” they tell Catholics to reverence in balance with Scripture. In seeking dialogue, the administrators have chosen to consider dialogue as a “pathway for the LCWR to ‘remedy serious doctrinal concerns.’” ignoring the content of Paul VI’s timely first encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, a document whose 50^th anniversary we commemorate next year?

At the time of that writing, Paul VI—cognizant of the final deliberation of Vatican II—wanted to clarify some principles helpful in the process of implementation of the council. He chooses to make the third section of the encyclical an exposition of the principles of dialogue.

And before a hew and cry rises within the blogosphere, yes, JS knows this document proceeds from the same Paul VI who chose to ignore the 1966 majority report of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control set up by John XXIII in 1963, writing in Humanae Vitae

that the sexual act must "retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life" [§11], and the "direct interruption of the generative process already begun" [§14] is unlawful.

And while JS recognize it can be accused of being a “cafeteria blog” for picking and choosing from among this pope’s documents, please do not judge with disgust this effort to add some light to the Vatican-LCWR mess.

   

Paul VI’s point is to delineate these principles as guidelines for dialogue sought with other faith communities. But his description might well serve as principles for any dialogue. Have the administrators forgotten them? Or are they, in their seeking “dialogue” with the LCWR being Cafeteria Cardinals forgetting this encyclical? Or are they ignoring that these principles of dialogue from Paul VI of happy memory exist simply because they really want Vatican II forgotten?

Since a lengthy blog is tedious at best, rather than summarizing the encyclical, out of respect for anyone reading,  I refer you to the document itself available at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_06081964_ecclesiam_en.html

The paragraphs on dialogue are numbered:

§§ 71 - 80        The Characteristics of the Dialogue of Salvation

§§ 81 - 82        Using the Dialogue of Salvation as a Model for the “New Dialogue”

He concludes summarizing the qualities of a dialogical foresight our “cafeteria church administrators” are ignoring in approaching the work of the religious communities represented by LCWR:

“In a dialogue conducted with this kind of foresight, truth is wedded to charity and understanding to love.”

Would this not be the dialogue Jesus seeks with us and between us all?

N.C.A.A. Penalties Against Penn State and Reform of the Church

Now I'm not much of a sports fan, nor a follower of the Penn State football team, but the Sandusky case and its aftermath has me thinking. 

But first, this N.C.A.A. ruling: 

Breaking News Alert

The New York Times

Monday, July 23, 2012 -- 9:32 AM EDT

N.C.A.A. Fines Penn State $60 Million for Sandusky Case

The N.C.A.A. announced significant penalties against Penn State and its football program Monday, including a $60 million fine and a four-year postseason ban, in the wake of the child sexual abuse scandal involving the former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

The punishment also included the loss of some scholarships and the vacating of all of the team’s victories from 1998 to 2011, but stopped short of forcing the university to shut down the football team for a season or more, the so-called death penalty. Still, the penalties are serious enough that it is expected to take Penn State’s football program, one of the most successful in the country, years before it will be able to return to the sport’s top echelon.

Read More:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-penalties-include-60-million-fine-and-bowl-ban.html?emc=na

Now the commentary:

Would that there were some NCAA-type oversight organization watching the Vatican and the world-wide Roman Catholic hierarchy. Imagine a third-party Über-regulator closely watching the goings-on of Church leaders! The world-wide cases of sexual abuse would have generated fines of billions of dollars in addition to the settlement dollars that have so far run two dioceses into bankruptcy.

And the proceeds? Dream with me here . . .

TRILLIONS FOR A THREE-FOLD FOUNDATION

Our Über-regulator--administered by a representatives of the alphabet soup of Catholic progressive organizations like SNAP, VOTF, NWM, CTA, WOC, RCWP, CORPUS, FCM, CITI, ACC, CACG, LCWR, [to identify them, just use your browser; Dignity-USA has a listing of many other U.S. groups http://www.dignityusa.org/links] and all the other many international progressive groups—would see that a foundation be established to create a kind of justice fund for,first, ongoing care of those who have suffered at the hands of pedophile clergy. And shouldn’t the Über-regulator be made up af a goodly representation of women, who as life-bearers are better equipped than celibate men to understand life issues.

The second service the foundation would provide is a fund to counterbalance the abundance of funding provided by numerous groups to further the anti-Vatican II "Restoration." This would create a counter-Restoration fund bigger than that provided by the likes of Opus Dei, K of C, Domino Pizza's Tom Monaghan, the Legionaries of Christ, Communion and Liberation.

Thirdly, the fine-funded proceeds—to which these "status quo" and "Vatican II-revisionist" could contribute if they wished—would be used to create a forum for dialogue on life [a reason for, perhaps, a majority of women on the administering group] and sexual ethics in the spirit of Cardinal Bernardin's "Seamless Garment" and  format. http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bernardinwade.html And since with all of what-will-be trillions of dollars generated by the fines resulting from all the on-going claims against the Church, a third portion of funding would be allotted to furthering practical advocacy for real justice for the most at-risk in our world.

Or perhaps you, fine reader, have suggestions for other uses to which the money from the dreamed-of fines could be applied by our imaginary Church Über-regulator. And don’t rule out added penalties for Vatican/hierarchy violating Catholic Social Teaching using as a standard by which to judge violations the Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church:  http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

BTW, there's an interesting commentary on Catholic Social Teaching and the present political landscape by E.J. Dionne and a panel on NOW with Alex Wagner on MSNBC aired on April 24, 2012 http://video.msnbc.msn.com/now-with-alex-wagner/47160528#47160528

Parish Closings and Married Clergy [except Catholic] Welcomings

A recent article by Don Horkey in The Polish Times of Detroit titled "Polish-American Parishes in the Middle of Archdiocesan Restructuring Plans" came to me by way of a friend as a forwarded email from Tony Kowalski.

The jist of the article is the closing and combining of Polish American parishes in Detroit by Archbishop Allen Vigneron. The article highlights the attitude of the "administrators" [as Anthony Padovano call the bishops] who whistle in the dark faced with the fact of declining numbers of priests--which they choose to ignore to the detriment of good people who are denied Eucharist by episcopal blind-sightedness. All the while these "pastors" accept married Episcopal priests and Lutheran ministers priests into service while ignoring the plethora of married priests who would gladly serve in parishes--and all this after years of claiming as one reason for celibacy in the Western Church the inability of a married priest to truly dedicate himself to the service of God's People.

Thank God for the dedication of the Society of Christ in serving the Polish-American people of Detroit. I hope they don't "burn out".

While I regret my Dad never encouraged us to learn the Polish he spoke to his parents as he grew up, I treasure the ethnic background I share with those who suffer from the short sighted policies of administrators like Archbishop Vigneron. Most of those people, unlike their administrator, would probably welcome a married priest.

U.S. LGBT Policy vs Official Church Attitudes

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Human Rights Day speech, delivered on December 6th in Geneva on Gay Rights is a forthright expression on the part of our administration! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/hillary-clinton-gay-rights-speech-geneva_n_1132392.html

While our citizenry still have much to learn about the rights of all, it's sad that Clinton's statement is more positive than our Catholic Catechism in its expression in par 2358 when it states about homosexuality: "This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." Couched as it is in demeaning language of tolerance at best, the call for non-discrimination sounds patronizing at best. This is not the expression proclaimed by those called to minister to all God's people. Most of us would proclaim belief in the all-embracing Jesus of the Gospel. If even science is showing us that there is documented evidence of homosexual and bisexual behavior in non-human species in our world, would not that same Jesus today wisely still say, "Love one another as I have loved you." And his outstretched arms still embrace us all.

Hans Küng to the Bishops

A friend just emailed me the "Letter to the Bishops" sent by Hans Küng in April 17, 2010. http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=15996 Those of us who were at the American Catholic Council in Detroit in June, had the delight of hearing Anthony Padovano engage Hans in a conversation reiterating some of the points he made in his letter over a year before.

Seems the venerable bishops have not heeded Hans' counsel and will twiddle their thumbs while they await the "great equalizer" who like Rome "hurries slowly" to put in the grave both those who enthusiastically push for reform and those who clutch adamantly to the security of a past full of tradition.

That those who advocate for "holding the line" draw the line at some point within the past few centuries is always a puzzlement. In some deluded twist of thinking, they seem to forget that, while we don't always like to admit it, Vatican II [Dei Verbum http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html par. 9] makes clear the value of both Scripture and Tradition. Seems the tradition of the "clutchers' extends only back to Vatican I and the 1860's.

If only those clutchers could recognize that tradition. more than clinging to the cherished tenets of the past, is giving birth to a child.

Passage of the Free Trade Agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea

I write to commiserate with all those who wrote their congress members to urge them to vote against these harmful FTAs.

The one good note is that our efforts in Connecticut with Representative Larson convinced him to vote against the Colombian FTA. Rep. Jim Himes [R-CT 4th] voted in favor, of course. I need to send our Representative Larson a "thank you" for getting his CT Democratic Caucus members to vote "no" on the Colombia FTA, bucking the stream against a majority of his other Democratic colleagues. I have to look up the CT vote on the other two FTAs, but I'm guessing the vote on them went about the same.

Blumenthal and Lieberman, as might have been expected, were split on the Colombia FTA, nay and yea respectively.

There was a snowball's chance in hell that these FTAs would be voted down. The elements working against defeat seem to be:

1. Five years of congressional wrangling

2. The administration's need to get something...anything...passed through this congress

3. The purported addition of job creation resulting from its passage. . . despite every one's remembering [or did they?] the negative effects of NAFTA & CAFTA on the jobs market. In an election year who could risk appearing to be against the [promised] creation of jobs?

As I wrote on my Facebook page today:

The passage of these FTAs, we will see, is a panacea for neither the drooping U.S. economy nor for the economies of Colombia, South Korea and Panama. Based on the results of such previous FTAs like NAFTA and CAFTA, the economies of the U.S. and those of the countries with whom the agreements were made faced ongoing challenges. Those who benefited from those agreements were large corporations, not the small businesses and unions whom they were purported to benefit.

When will our legislators learn that this kind of trade agreement reinforce the image of the U.S. in the eyes of the people--not the governments and businesses--of these countries as a "trade bully" that eliminates the little folks from the market place in favor of big business? The long term effects of yesterday's passage of these FTAs will come back to bite us in the butt.

IMMIGRATION AND PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE

Varying Views

Many of us living in non-border states of the U.S. can sympathize with the challenges of a balanced and enforceable U.S. immigration policy. At the same time many of us—including many legislators on both sides of the aisle—recognize the need to address the undocumented worker, like many other countries do, with international economic principles, rather than with legal or military measures. Laws and fences will not keep people who wish to cloth and feed their families from seeking gainful employment. Our good New England poet recognized the clash of opinion regarding fences, walls and boundaries: some who say, “Good fences make good neighbors”, while others claim, “Something there is that doesn't love a wall.”

Passionate Economist vs. Constitutional Judge
Two distinct commentaries—one by Dr. Terry Lowell, the other by Judge Andrew Napolitano, both made in 2010—are making the internet rounds. See them both at http://www.darkskiesblog.com/2010/08/13/professor-terry-j-lovell-obama-and-holder-are-taking-the-side-of-mexico-and-the-drug-cartels-in-suing-the-state-of-arizona-video/
The passionate band-wagoning commentary by Dr. Terry J. Lovell, Professor of Business and Economics at Yavapai College in Prescott, Arizona, rather than clearing the air about the Federal legal action in suing the State of Arizona over its immigration law (SB1070), appears to say suit by the Federal government:
1. Is a concession to the drug cartels.
2. Favors the Mexican government.
3. Shows the U.S. government is unwilling to defend its citizens.
4. Is meant to aid and abet criminal element in their threats against Sheriff Paul Babeu.
5. Is opposed to Federal Statutes.
As a balance to Professor Lowell’s rant, some may find it worthwhile to hear a juridical commentary on the Federal Lawsuit of Arizona; it’s worthwhile to listen to Judge Andrew Napolitano as interviewed on Fox TV regarding the constitutional ramifications of Arizona’s SB1070.
Judge Napolitano is not related to U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, who, it’s reported, he sometimes jokingly calls "Cousin Janet."

Congressional Research Service

Another commentary from the Congressional Research Service is also more balanced than that of Prof. Lowell. It can be found at
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/topics/science/immigcrs.pdf
The report titled “State Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona’s S.B. 1070” states:
The enactment of S.B. 1070 sparked significant legal and policy debate. Supporters argue that federal enforcement of immigration law has not adequately deterred the migration of unauthorized aliens into Arizona, and that state action is both necessary and appropriate to combat the negative effects of unauthorized immigration. Opponents argue, among other things, that S.B. 1070 will be expensive and disruptive, will be susceptible to uneven application, and can undermine community policing by discouraging cooperation with state and local law enforcement. In part to respond to some of these concerns, the Arizona State Legislature modified S.B. 1070 on April 30, 2010, through the approval of H.B. 2162. This report discusses the major provisions of S.B.1070, as modified by H.B. 2162, and the legal and constitutional considerations possibly implicated by their implementation. The report focuses primarily on those provisions that require state enforcement of federal immigration law and impose criminal penalties for immigration-related conduct, and discusses preemption issues that might be raised by these measures.

Personal Experience

This commentary is inspired by a number of experiences. In the 60’s, as secretary for a migrant council in a rural area of Illinois, I visited “migrant camps” and saw the simple dignity of families who—in an effort to provide for their families, including small children who worked the fields with mom and dad—followed the migrant stream, arriving in the fields to harvest asparagus. They slept in converted chicken coups with no more than a dual burner propane-fueled hot plate to fend off the cold of spring nights. These conditions they accepted not because they wanted to, but because it was the work they knew and did to raise their family.
Forty years ago in a pastoral position, I worked closely with the former Immigration and Naturalization Service [now U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement] learning the proper procedure for assisting the scores of people—mainly from Latin America—who came to us for assistance in completing their paper work petitioning for legal permanent residence. Back then, INS officials unofficially admitted the need to address complexity of the U.S. immigration law.
In 1992, I worked closely with police community relations in the city where I lived. I had taken part in the Citizens’ Police Academy and became aware of the challenges of law enforcement. I was also executive director of a service agency for the large Hispanic population of the community. There was a percentage of the population represented by letters to the editor to the local paper who commented on the number of crimes by “illegal aliens.” My contact with the Hispanic community made me aware these commentaries were long on passionate bias and short on true statistics. Adding to this anti-immigrant sentiment, a community organization began researching the number of traffic stops by police leading to detentions because of “lack of papers.” The city was sued based on the large number of traffic stops of people “who looked foreign.”
The pastoral experience in an inter-cultural context made me recognize that every human being has dignity and deserves to have the means to support family. My experience with law enforcement raised my consciousness about the inadequacies of applying legal approaches alone in solving community problems.

PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE
Rather than heated commentary using half-truths, spending more money on walls and militaristic law-enforcement, those of us who are children of immigrants—most of us—might consider reviewing the principles upon which to base actions, thereby better serving the efforts toward solutions. Some sources for organizations—both Non-Church based and Church-based—working to formulate principles and advocating for human rights based on those principles are listed here.
Non-Church Sources
Immigrant Rights: http://discoverhumanrights.org/sites/7cc8fb84-899d-457d-a486-470ccb03fb16/uploads/Migrant_Rights_Fact_Sheet.pdf
Office of the High Commission on Human Rights
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cmw/docs/HLMigration/MigrationDevelopmentHC'spaper.pdf

Presidential
http://www.humanrights.gov/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-of-entry-as-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-of-persons-who-participate-in-serious-human-rights-and-humanitarian-law-violations-and-other-abuses/

Church Sources
USCCB: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/get-involved/get-more-information/migration-and-refugee-legislation.cfm

Our Sunday Visitor
“Answering tough questions about immigration”
An article in Q&A format by Bishop John C. Wester, of the Diocese of Salt Lake City and is chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration
http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org/documents/wester-interview.pdf

Franciscan Holy Name Province: http://www.hnp.org/jpic/immigration-action.cfm
In Chapter 2011 the Province formalized its commitment by passing the following statement:
"The Holy Name Province of the Order of Friars Minor, as a corporate entity as well as through our local communities and ministries, make clear our support for and defense of documented and undocumented immigrants to the United States."