|This photo has nothing to with any of the interesting stuff. It's just wishful thinking.|
I've come across a number of interesting articles today, so I'm just going to post some snippets, links, and a few comments. I don't know that there's any real connection amongst them other than my interest. The first is about Sarah Palin and Archbishop Chaput appearing together at a fund raiser for Terry Schaivo's family non profit. Readers will remember the Terry Schaivo case for becoming a political football in Florida and Washington. It wound up being a huge media circus for the right to life folks which certain politicians, one in the White House comes to mind, and does his brother who happened to reside in the Florida State House, took liberty to use for political reasons. Now it's Archbishop Chaput and Sarah Palin. (Poor Sarah, her career appears to be on a downward trajectory. Maybe this appearance will help.)
Heads up to Mike McShea and his Cultural Christian blog for this tidbit. The article is from Canada Free Press. Mike has also excerpted another description from a password blocked site that I couldn't get into. It's worth reading if only for it's interesting history on the Schaivo case.
"PHILADELPHIA, —The Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network is delighted to announce that Archbishop Charles Chaput, Archbishop of the Diocese of Philadelphia, will celebrate “The National Memorial Mass for Terri’s Day.”
In addition, Governor Sarah Palin will be the honored speaker at the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network’s Award Gala following Terri’s Memorial Mass.
The International Day of Prayer and Remembrance for Terri Schindler Schiavo, and All of Our Vulnerable Brothers and Sisters (“Terri’s Day”) was established in 2007 and is observed each year on or around March 31st, the date of Terri’s death."
There is something just disconcerting about Palin and Chaput together at a fund raiser for a non profit run by the family members of Terry Schaivo. I guess poor Terry is one person who will never be left to rest in peace. Especially from the political vultures.
Michael Sean Winters has a post up today at the National ___________Reporter that really seems to be all about MSW coming out of his conservative closet. He compares and contrast a NY Times Op Ed written by Frank Bruni, with a Washington Post Op Ed written by Cardinal Wuerl. Bruni's post is based on a forth coming book by Gary Wills about the history and flaws of the clerical priesthood. Bruni concentrates on the flaws. Not surprising given the news coming out of LA and elsewhere. Wuerl concentrates on the necessity for Church dogma and the part that dogma plays in Roman Catholicism's social justice initiatives for which, of course, the Church should be patted on the back and Americans should be thankful. Wuerl completely leaves out 75% of the money for those DC charitable efforts come from taxes, not Catholic altruism.
In any event these are the sentences that brought me up short from MSW. At this point in his missive he is essentially attacking Fr Tony Flannery for refusing to adhere to the CDF and acting on his oath of obedience--an oath that as a religious Flannery did not make to his bishop or Rome. MSW leaves out the part about Flannery being requested to publicly state Jesus instituted the hierarchical Church and the papacy. I think MSW conveniently left that out because it wouldn't exactly reinforce the following sentences:
..."And, is there not something a little bit strange about all these 21st century champions of 1st century Christian practices who seem to discern in that first Christian century a society that looks completely compatible with the more found today on the Upper West Side?
"This fascination with primitivism among liberals is bizarre to me. Yes, the doings of the early church are interesting, but they are not necessarily of doctrinal significance. We are Catholics, after all, not Baptists."
I guess Michael fails to see that Rome is demanding Flannery adhere to their version of 1st century Christian practices in which everything Jesus instituted looks just like today in Rome.....perfectly epitomized by the machinations of Cardinal Wuerl.
Tom Fox of the National _____________ Reporter has responded to Bishop Finn's attacks on their _________ Creds. I thought Roberts was understated and respectful. Not so much the conservative commenters who have been coming over from Fr Z's blog. Speaking of whom, according to his blog he is attending a conference in Oklahoma on exorcism. Where before have I heard that a conservative media priest thinks he's an exorcist. Oh that would have been Fr Eutenuer. Fr Zuhlsdorf should pray very long and very hard over what happened to Eutenuer and not let his ego or his conservative flock propel him into a ministry that is quite probably more than he can handle. He's much better off making a name for himself by becoming the Catholic clerical version of Rush Limbaugh or making the NCR his personal conversion project. I just wish he would tell his followers to stop cutting and pasting his work into NCR comments without giving him credit. That would be plagiarism and last I checked that was considered immoral.
Finally, I'd like to draw attention to Bill Lyndsey's translation of the French bishops statement on gay marriage. Bill seems to have done an excellent job with the translation. I found this extensive letter to be very interesting to read, open to dialogue and to have been utterly twisted around by the Lifesite news article I used in my own post on this letter.
However, in the end, in the final paragraph, it came to that old bugaboo for women---the common good:
The real question is, then, to discover whether, in the interest of the common good, an institution regulated by law should continue to speak of the link between conjugality and procreation, the link between the faithful love of a man and a woman and the birth of an infant, as it reminds us all that
- life is a gift
- the two sexes are equal and both indispensable for life
- the clear recognition of parenthood is essential for the child.
Evolution of family law is always possible. But rather than yield to the pressure of various groups, France will do credit to itself by implementing a real society-wide debate and seeking an original solution which does justice to the demand to recognize homosexual persons without, however, undermining the anthropological foundations of society. (Just substitute patriarchy for 'undermining the anthropological foundations of society' and the for all it's even handed rhetoric, the French bishops pass the Vatican test with their very last words.)