Monday, May 14, 2012

THE CULTURE WARS AND SSPX, O ME, TALK ABOUT CIRCLING THE WAGONS



This is from NBC Sports report! My comments at the end!

Catholic high school in Arizona forfeits baseball championship game rather than play against a team with a girl on it
Rick Chandler
updated 1:29 pm. EDT May. 10, 2012


Our Lady of Sorrows is a fundamentalist Catholic School in Phoenix, Ariz., which adheres strictly to God’s word. And so, when OLS made it to the state baseball championship game against Mesa Prep, they immediately chose to forfeit. That’s because Mesa Prep has a female player (gasp!) — second baseman Paige Sultzbach.

Ned Flanders: “It’s right there in the Bible, people! Thou shalt not mingle with the girl who got that single.”

Mesa had beaten OLS twice during the regular season in games that Sultzbach sat out in respect of the other team’s religious objections. But when the state championship rolled around, Mesa Prep was no longer willing to turn the other cheek.

Our Lady of Sorrows school officials would not comment, but Sultzbach’s mother, Pamela Sultzbach, said her daughter and the rest of the team received the news after Wednesday afternoon’s practice.

“This is not a contact sport, it shouldn’t be an issue,” Pamela said. “It wasn’t that they were afraid they were going to hurt or injure her, it’s that (they believe) that a girl’s place is not on a field.”

Paige played softball and volleyball in junior high, but because Mesa Prep does not have a girls softball team, she decided to try out for the boys baseball team, with the coach’s encouragement.

But wait a minute, hold on. Take a look at this inspiration Jesus statue from Catholic Supply, Inc. Look at the catcher’s hair — that’s clearly a girl.

Anyway:

Our Lady of Sorrows is run by the U.S. branch of the Society of Saint Pius X, a group of conservative, traditionalist priests who disagree with the reforms of the Vatican II Council in the 1960s and broke with the Catholic Church in the 1980s.

“I respect their views, but it’s a bit out of the 18th century,” said Mesa Prep athletic director Amy Arnold, who is the only woman now coaching a boys high-school football team in Arizona.

Calls to OLS officials by the Arizona Republic were not returned.

MY COMMENTS: This is making a mountain out of a mole hill but it is rather fascinating given all the culture wars now and the marginalization of the Catholic Church in whatever "fundamentalistic" form it takes.

Of course, I don't think there is any prohibition in Scripture or Tradition in either the Full Communion of the Catholic Church and the SSPX group that is not quite in full communion but could be soon, but I'm not clairvoyant.

I was listening to a comment by an irate caller from the Northeast on the Catholic Channel this morning. She bragged about how liberal and forward thinking people are in the northeast and how ridiculous this decision by the SSPX school was. Then she said and I loosely quote, "If they are receiving any government funds, they should be mandated to play a team with a girl on it!" She wasn't being ironic or stoking the fires of the culture war through sarcasm, she was being honest about her opinion, which God bless her, she has a right to have.

I've come to the conclusion that liberal democrats are really a new form of Puritanism and it makes since that they are isolated primarily in the northeast that has such a strong puritanical heritage. The Puritans outlawed Catholicism because Catholicism wasn't pure. Secularists of the liberal bent want to use law against the Catholic Church for their new form of Secular Puritanism, which isn't your father's conservative Puritanism, but your neighbors ultra liberal form of it, but nonetheless want to use law to have their way and outlaw the Catholic Church.

But if there is anything that Progressives hate in the Catholic Church besides Patriarchy and Monarchy it is Fundamentalism.

Those three things, keep an eye out on the use of these terms to denigrate the Catholic Church or those who are striving to be faithful to Holy Mother Church. And that is another thing they hate, the use of feminine terms for Church and masculine terms for God, unless one uses feminine terms for God too, or masculine terms for Church and God--then that would be politically correct.

34 comments:

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Fr, I guess you won't let me use street language to talk about these people...

Templar said...

God Bless OLS! They are living their faith....men and women are equal in dignity not physically and it is not proper that women should play on mens sports teams or vice versa. The sense of appropriate behavior in the US would benefit by a return to 1800s sensibilities in this situation.

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Yes, Templar. I have often said let's keep flush toilets and penicillin and go back to about 1850.

Joseph Johnson said...

Templar and Gene,
I'll be slightly more progressive and say return to early 20th century, probably pre-World War I sensibilities would even work!
Gene, I would add early automobiles, such as the Model T Ford, crank telephones, and bare-bulb electric lights to the flush toilets (preferably with the high tank and pull chain) and penicillin!

As to the Model T's, I speak from personal experience, I have built and owned three. They are great, easy to maintain, basic transportation, as long as you don't need to exceed about 45 mph!

ytc said...

Blah. Non issue, I think.

Anonymous said...

What's next in SSPX Churches? Back pews for women and girls?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I've only been in an SSPX Church briefly for a tour, as noted on this blog, but never attended an SSPX Mass (and oddly enough, even though I celebrate the EF Mass every Tuesday as a low Mass and the First Sunday of the month as a high Mass, I've never have attended an EF Mass since the mid 1960's!)But in the 1963 I went with my dad to his hometown of Judique, Cape Breton, to his home parish of St. Andrew and the men all sat on one side and the women on the other, which as a rising 4th grader I thought was a bit odd since I wanted to sit with my mommie and couldn't!

rcg said...

That sort of segregation is/was common in Canadian Parishes. When I was very young our priest was Polish and was very proud of his French, too. He would travel to Canada as way to practice and relax. He told us about such a segregation. Additionally, he said that sometimes only one side would go up for communion! He went to another Mass and the reverse side took communion. He was too embarrassed to ask why.

Carol H. said...

There have been a few times in Mass when I wished the pews were segregated. There are a few men in our parish who can't keep their hands off of their wives during the liturgy. It is both distracting and embarrassing.

Pater Ignotus said...

The decision by this SSPX congregation is simply silliness masquerading as "orthodoxy."

The SSPX (or the Catholic Church) isn't being "marginalized" at all. Silly people are being called out on their silliness.

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Ignotus, Why don't you tell us what else you think is silly...LOL!

Sometimes Churches do things to make a point. In extreme times, pointed measures are sometimes taken to call attention to an alternate (from the secular) understanding.

Speaking of silliness...I think it is silly of you to use Margaret Nutting Ralph's books for your Bible study. Why, in a time in which false teaching and unbelief have crept into many seminaries and secular/modernist understandings of Scripture are instilling doubt and heresy all around, would a Catholic Priest choose a book that views Holy Scripture as merely "literature" and is filled with double talk, subtle unbelief, and secular/existential understandings of revealed truth?
There are far better, more orthodox books on understanding Scripture by far better theologians and bible scholars. You might start with Pope Benedict's book on "Jesus of Nazareth." I guess that one is too silly.

Behavior like this is why Churches become "extreme in some of their statemenmts and actions. They are fighting back. You might want to consider your calling and face your guns toward the real enemy...

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Let's start a list of the things Ignotus finds silly, shall we:
1)ad orientum
2)maniples
3)fiddlebacks
4)lifting the chausable
5)the cappa magna
6)cassocks
7)birettas
8)The TLM generally
9)Triumphalism
10)kneeling for Communion
11)referring to the Eucharist as a Sacrifice (or emphasizing it)
12)orthodox Catholic Biblical scholarship
13)Latin (unless for purposes of impressing someone)

Anything I missed...?
12)

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin says that the study of biblical literary forms is dangerous, leading to false teaching and unbelief.

The Church says "In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrative then current. 'For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetic texts, and in the other forms of literary expression.'" CCC # 110, quoting Dei Verbum 12)

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Now, Ignotus, you know that is not what I said. There are a couple of ways in which one can study Biblical literary forms (one of my areas of concentration, BTW, was NT theology...I can even drop names). The first is from a premise of belief and faith (credo ut intelligam), which is what the Church is talking about in "Verbum Dei," and which is the premise of Pope Benedict in "Jesus of Nazareth."

The second is from a premise of unbelief and an understanding that the Bible is merely literature. It is assumed, for instance, that if an event or saying only appears in one Gospel, then it must not have really happened or been said. If there are inconsistencies in various accounts or omissions in others, then somebody must be fabricating. If there are consistencies between NT events and OT events, well, this must be "midrash." It must have been contrived, it is just too, well, consistent. LOL!
Now, I believe Margaret Nutcase Ralph, whose book you have chosen to use in your Bible study, falls within the second category. Her doctorate is in "The Bible as Literature." Now, ask yourself just why does someone choose that field? Just what does that indicate to someone who has been to seminary and knows the games and the lies.

Oh, and there you go glibly quoting dogma, just like a parrot. Are you really a Priest or just stuck in some theater of the absurd masquerade one act play?

Pater Ignotus said...

No scripture scholar I have studied/read says that if an event is described in only one Gospel, then the event never happened.

No scripture scholar I have studied/read has ever said that inconsistencies mean someone was "fabricating."

I am perfectly comfortable with the Church's recommendation that, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, we should study the literary forms employed by the human authors.

Doing what the Church recommends is a good thing, verdad?

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Well, Ignotus, you obviously haven't read much by the person whose book you are using for Bible study. LOL!

The implication of all modernist Biblical scholarship is that much of Scripture is fabrication. Are you really that naive, or are you just playing dumb?

The Church's intentions and premises are different from those of most current NT scholarship outside the Church (and much within it).

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin - I have used Dr. Ralph's works but I cannot find the parts where she says what you say she says. Can you provide citations?

I'm neither naive nor dumb. I just don't think it is helpful or accurate to make charges against any person that can't be substantiated. In other words, I don't judge her books by their covers.

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Here ya' go. This is from: "Catechesis on the Eucharist: NT Models"

(Notice that she says that Luke "places" Jesus in the manger or that Luke "has Jesus born in a manger." This could not possiobly have been God's initiative. Luke is merely telling us tall tales to make a point. She also somewhat misuses the term, "midrash.")

Luke's Infancy Narrative
An infancy narrative is a distinct literary form. It does not respond to the request: “Tell me
exactly what happened.” Rather, it responds to the request: “Tell me just how great this
person became as you know from hindsight.” Infancy narratives developed late in the Gospel
tradition. Only Matthew and Luke include infancy narratives in their gospels. Only Luke
pictures Jesus being born in a manger. Luke has two purposes in doing this: One is to teach the
significance of Jesus’ birth by using a literary device known as midrash; the other is to teach
something about Eucharist.
Both Matthew and Luke employ midrash in their birth narratives, that is, they weave into their
accounts of Jesus’ birth plot elements that are allusions to Old Testament texts. Their purpose
in doing this is catechetical: to teach the significance of Jesus’ birth as it was understood after
the resurrection. It is because Matthew and Luke both employ midrash that their infancy
narratives differ so much in details: For example, only Matthew has the star and the wise men.
Only Luke has the manger and the announcement to the shepherds. In explaining the
significance of Jesus Christ’s birth as it was understood after the resurrection they allude to
different Old Testament texts.
When Luke places Jesus’ birth in a manger he is alluding to the beginning of the book of Isaiah.
Isaiah presents God as bemoaning the fact that the people do not know God. God says: “An ox
knows its owner,/ an ass, its master’s manger; / But Israel does not know, / my people has not
understood” (Is 1:3). By placing Jesus in a manger, having the angel announce Jesus’ birth to
the shepherds, and having the shepherds recognize their savior (Luke 2:1‐20), Luke is teaching
that the situation described in Isaiah has been reversed through Jesus Christ. God’s people now
do recognize their God.
4
In addition, by placing Jesus in a manger, Luke is teaching something about Eucharist. In Luke’s
account the shepherds are told that “…today in the city of David a savior has been born for you
who is Messiah and Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find an infant wrapped in
swaddling clothes and lying in a manger” (Luke 2:11‐12). When the shepherds follow the
angel’s instructions, they find “Mary and Joseph and the infant lying in the manger” (Luke 2:16).
By having the angel tell the shepherds that the infant lying in the manger is a sign, Luke is
teaching us to look for a deeper meaning. What does this sign signify?


There's lots more. Have fun. You might also want to google her name and check some of the forums on which she is discussed and note the upset of parishioners at being tols these things did not happen.
Pastoral irresponsibility, anyone? LOL!

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

BTW, she also says the reason there are not women priests is that the Church has misread Scripture. So, 2000 years of Magisterium and old Maggie is gonna' set the Church straight...LOL!@

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin - Is "This could not possiobly have been God's initiative. Luke is merely telling us tall tales to make a point" Ralph's text, or your comment on her text?

I don't want to comment on Ralph thinking I am commenting on Pin, or vice-versa.

I am unconcerned with the idea that a biblical author "placed" someone somewhere. For their respective accounts of the preaching of the Beatitudes, Matthew places Jesus on a mountain (Matt 5:1), Mark places Jesus in the hills (Mk 3:13), and Luke places him on a level place (Lk 6:17). (Personally, I suspect the "place" is the same though written about with different emphases and intentions.)

A coming question for you to ponder: What does the Church expect of scripture scholars when the Church asks them to study biblical literary forms?

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

No, Ignotus. That quote is mine..and you are once more missing the point. As to what does the Church expect from Biblical scholars, I suggest you read the Foreward and the first chapter of Pope Benedict's book, "Jesus of Nazareth" for an answer to your question.

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Now, a word on premises: Since Schweitzer, at least, the methodology has been to separate the "Historical Jesus" from the "Christ of Faith." The implications of this are many and bad, but I will not get into that now. There was a landmark book written in the early 1900's by a German Biblical scholar named Martin Kaler (Kahler?). The title was, "Die Sobekonten Historische Jesus und Der Biblische Christ." The "So-Called Historical Jesus." Kahler is saying that the "quest for a historical Jesus" is pretty much a waste of time. There just isn't enough there for any kind of bio-history. He makes a strong point that to separate the Biblical Jesus from the "Christ of faith" is a theological construct and false in its very conception. They are one and the same and cannot be separated. To do so is to usher in the existential/theological school that says the Christ of Faith is the Jesus who is dead but living in us as our self-renewal and existential awareness as Christ in the "other." The Christ of Faith, over time, became more and more of an anthropological/philosophical blank check for humanistic interpretation.

The Pope has taken up Kahler's theme. He also says that the Biblical Jesus and the Christ of Faith are one and the same.

To begin with the Bible as literature is a false premise because it is not a faith stance. The study of literary forms in the Bible is, in my theologically well-educated opinion, a waste of time and merely of academic interest. To expose parishioners to all this is,in my pastoral opinion, unnecessary and irresponsible.

I did not know Ralph, but I knew and studied with her buddies... Sally Te Selle, Mary O'Neal, Rosemary Reuther, and Pagles. If you are stuck there by mistake, then move on. If you are there by design, then my distrust of you is well considered.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Having been thoroughly schooled in the historical critical method of Scripture and literary forms to the nth degree in the late 70's and much more academically inclined St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore compared to what was probably taught as the same but in much more nuanced way at Mt. St. Mary's in the 1980's I must agree with you PIN that to bring this hermeneutic to the laity in an unadulterated way is irresponsible. I know of what I speak as I did precisely that in my first parish assignment fresh out of that schooling. The Holy Father analysis of this method with his own nuances as enunciated in his Book, Jesus of Nazareth is right on target in so many ways. In the seminary we had seminarians lose their faith over this method of scripture which debunked so much of traditional Christianity. I saw that first hand. It led people to deny the Virgin Birth, The Infancy Narratives, the reason for the empty tomb, and even the bodily resurrection. It neuter Jesus as the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity and cast Him in a "Life of Bryan" motif. I can't think of his name right now, but he has a show on HBO, gave Obama millions and spews off worst than Rush on many things and never gets called on it. He is virulently anti-Catholic and post-Christian and I've heard him speak quite academically about the historical critical method of the Scripture making me wonder if he was a seminarian in the Catholic church during the time I was.

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin says: "The study of literary forms in the Bible is, in my theologically well-educated opinion, a waste of time and merely of academic interest. To expose parishioners to all this is,in my pastoral opinion, unnecessary and irresponsible."

Good Fr. McDonald says: "Having been thoroughly schooled in the historical critical method of Scripture and literary forms to the nth degree in the late 70's and much more academically inclined St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore compared to what was probably taught as the same but in much more nuanced way at Mt. St. Mary's in the 1980's I must agree with you PIN that to bring this hermeneutic to the laity in an unadulterated way is irresponsible."

The Church says: "The historical-critical method is the indispensable method for the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts. Holy Scripture, inasmuch as it is the "word of God in human language," has been composed by human authors in all its various parts and in all the sources that lie behind them. Because of this, its proper understanding not only admits the use of this method but actually requires it." ("The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church," Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1993)

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Blah, blah, blah, I much prefer our Holy Father's take on this which doesn't mean that he excludes it altogether but that it must, and I emphasize, must, uphold the Magisterium of the Church in faith and morals. So much of this method, as our Holy Father brilliantly acknowledges as he take a razor to this method, tears down and dumbs down and erodes faith especially in the divinity of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Pater Ignotus said...

"Blah Blah Blah" Now there's an argument worth considering . . . Is that a quote from "Jesus of Nazareth," or did you think that one up all on your own, Good Father?

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Ignotus, No one is denying that the historical-critical method has its place. I dare say I have had more exposure to it than you have.

It is sort of like looking at a painting of a beautiful nude woman. You can view it from a perspective of love of beauty and appreciation for the creation and use words to describe it that enhance that beauty and wonder. You can view it clinically/biologically, using words that neutralize and objectify it; or, you can view it pornographically and use street terms that belittle and de-humanize it. The painting is no less real and the woman is no less beautiful.

Pater Ignotus said...

Clinical study of any body, human, traditionalist, or paramecium, doesn't "neutralize or objectify" it.

I dare say I have had FAR more exposure to clinical studies of nature than you and I could drop names that would make your head spin.

My science (clinical) background has led me into a reverential relationship with the critters, big and small, that I have known from the inside out. Ecosystem analysis, littoral studies, even slicing embedded specimens with a microtome - all "clinical" things - have helped me to become more inthralled with nature and Nature's God.

So, you stand back from scripture and sigh "How Lovely!" while I and my Summer Scripture Series folks dig into the nitty gritty to discover the inner workings of God's revelation and shout "WOW!"

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Yes, Ignotus, clinical study, by definition, objectifies an object and removes any romantic or emotional elements from the equation. That is why it is called "clinical." You are mixing your romanticism and your analysis up.

I have spent a lifetime in the woods and on streams. I have studied reptiles and amphibians all my life and was a member of the Philadelphia Herpetological Society for years. Ever milked a rattlesnake? Ever shot a #3 rapid in a canoe? Ever spent a week camping in the Everglades while doing a census on certain reptiles? I'm sure you've never shot wild hogs or gutted a deer? So, I've lived a while, too, Ignotus.
BTW, you are not studying the "inner workings of God's Revelation" this summer. Your presumption is showing. The inner workings of God's Revelation are what we contemplate during the Mass...you know, the Mystery. We don't do that by reading some second-rate, modernist/feminist theological hack.
BTW, you misspelled "enthralled."

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I would ask Gene and PI not to stoke each others flames to the point of being inflammatory. I do delete some comments but I hate stifling good discussion. Please be kind, courteous and refrain from using derogatory names for PI or any other person especially if these have sexual or racist overtones even if done "tongue in cheek" and not intended to betray actual attitudes but simply are satire. Thanks so much!

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin says - In studying Scripture you are "not stydying the inner workings of God's revelation."

The Church says - "The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament, which hand on the ultimate truth of God's revelation."

So I am, again, happy to be with the Church in saying that the study of Scripture is the study of God's revelation.

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Uh, so where does that statement say that we are "discovering the inner workings of God's Revelation?" I must have missed that part.

Fr. I am not aware of any of my remarks to Ignotus having racist or sexual overtones...however, I promise that any names I do call him will not be "tongue-in-cheek." LOL!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Name calling in general should not occurred toward anyone on a blog sponsored by a priest and certainly doing so towards other priests, no matter their stripe, is not traditional or pre-Vatican II. We, and I include myself, were taught to respect priests and nuns even when in error and only politely remind them of their error without name calling as that offends Catholic sensibilities and many sensible Catholics have been offended with some remarks and names written on my priestly blog, which could go to higher authorities in the Church, so please abide!

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Were Priests taught to respect laity and other Priests. If so, Ignotus must have stayed home reading Margaret Nutting Ralph that day...