Volunteer Lemonade from NRA's Lemons

Perhaps the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre criticism of the administration's pushing of failed solutions could make lemonade from its lemons by taking his “crazy” suggestion a step further by asking NRA members to come forward and offer their volunteer service to their school districts. We have volunteers in our schools for other purposes; why not licensed and gun-use-trained volunteers for security? Seems the presence of sane and law-abiding NRA members guarding our schools would serve to make everybody happy: “tea-party” types would be glad no state or federal monies would be used, thereby keeping “big government” out of local issues; the defenders of 2nd Amendment rights would be happy that the ”right to bear arms” is not being trampled; the anti-gun folks would be content there’d be no added proliferation of guns, since volunteers would have their own; and what red-blooded, gun-totting American would not jump at the chance to “strut their stuff” in a public place? Promoters of volunteerism have reason to rejoice in the renewal of a GHW Bush era “million points of light” solution at the grass-roots level.

Disclaimer: As neither a gun owner nor a member of the NRA, I see the suggestion of armed guards in our public places as one more step toward the “security state” seen by those who recoil at military personnel armed with assault-rifles at foreign airports. And I don’t agree with LaPierre’s concept: "the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." While this is a somewhat "tongue-in-cheek" commentary, I'd like to think the suggestion might have merit in giving the NRA a chance to "put it's money where its mouth is."

Headlines For A New Mayan Era

Well, it’s the morning of December 21, 2012, and the world as we’ve known it is still here. Now we can reflect on what the end of the Mayan Long Count calendar really means—the ushering in of what might be called “a new era” or as the Mayans conceived it “beyond the 13^th b’ak’tun.” And according to their concept of time, since the first four creations failed, perhaps we can make it work this time. Accordingly, here are a few suggested headlines a New Era would expect to produce. Please comment to include your own hopeful headlines:

·       World Peace Established

·       All Guns Abolished—Existing Firearms Turned In Around the World

·       Congress and President Agree on Sane Fiscal Policy: Fiscal Cliff Averted

·       Global Climate Warming Acknowledged by International Community: Worldwide Environmental Policies Established

·       Vatican Welcomes Women to Full Ministry: Pope Acknowledges Married, LGBT Priesthood

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.