Wednesday, June 30, 2010


This horrible ongoing sex abuse crisis in the Church, with most of the cases from the good old 70's when Catholics, including priests, lost their Catholic and/or priestly identity, experimented with everything and let it all hang out in the most malicious and immature ways, just keeps on keeping on! It is sad for everyone, from those abused to those who gave to the Church in good faith and those who are disillusioned by the mortal sins and crimes of priests and their bishops who did not manage their priests as Catholics would expect.

With that said, many of you may be aware that some lawyers in the USA are suing the Vatican. The Vatican's lawyer who is an American, Jeffry Lena, appealed the Vatican's position to the Supreme Court which yesterday, the Supreme Court refused to hear and returned it to a lower court. Many saw this as a serious set back to the Vatican and that even Pope Benedict would eventually be questioned by plaintiff lawyers.

One of the most anti-Catholic of lawyers who has made millions and millions on lawsuits against the Church is Jeffry Anderson. After the ruling yesterday, a newspaper in Anderson's hometown of Minneapolis wrote the following:

"The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for St. Paul lawyer Jeff Anderson to sue Pope Benedict on behalf of sex-abuse victims when it refused Monday to hear the Vatican's appeal of an Oregon lawsuit.

Anderson, who specializes in filing abuse suits against the Roman Catholic Church, called the decision "the biggest breakthrough in the movement's history." ...

Anderson predicted that now he can eventually depose Pope Benedict.

"I won't start with him; I'm going to work my way up," he said. "But this ruling gives me the ability to depose anybody within the organization who has knowledge about the events."

On the other hand, the Vatican's lawyer, another Jeffry, but Jeffry Lena gave an interview to Vatican Radio. He is very articulate. He paints a much different and more positive picture. You can read what he said on the website and also listen to the interview he gave HERE.


What the liberal experiment in the Catholic Church has done to the Church in the last 40 years:

The old saying that the Nile isn't just a river in Egypt can apply easily to aging liberals in the Church as well as some younger ones. They appear to be in total denial about the experiment of liberalism in the Catholic Church following on the heals of the Second Vatican Council. The denial concerns the state of the Church, especially in Europe, but also here in America where liberalism has all but destroyed the prophetic nature of Catholicism and allowed it to succumb to the dictatorship of secularism promoted by partisan politics and the primacy of the individual over the collective good or what is called the common good.

For example, John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter commented on the grave situation of the Church in Belgium. This once predominantly Catholic country is a mere shadow of its former self. Only 7% of Catholics go to Mass on Sunday. The sex abuse scandal has reached the highest levels of the Church there and has led to a "police state" action against the hierarchy in that country which would have been inconceivable even 25 years ago.

John Allen writes, "“A 2008 study by Leuven University, for example, found that only about seven percent of Belgian Catholics attend Mass on a weekly basis, down from 11 percent a decade earlier. Only half of newborn children in Belgium today are baptized, the same study found, and only one-quarter of couples in Belgium today choose to be married in the church.
Ambivalence about the Catholic church, and the Vatican in particular, can be glimpsed from the way Belgium responded to the controversy last year over Benedict XVI’s remarks en route to Africa to the effect that condoms make the problem of AIDS worse. While those words triggered wide debate, only in Belgium did the national parliament formally vote to censure the pontiff.”

Allen continues to point out how one elected government official, a socialist, felt when Pope Benedict named a new more traditionally minded Archbishop for Belgium to replace the retiring, somewhat liberal Cardinal who, on his watch, the Church declined to the point described above, "“Benedict’s choice of Léonard, 70, to replace Danneels further aggravated backlash against the church in some quarters. Deputy Prime Minister Laurette Onkelinx, a leading French-speaking member of the Socialist Party, charged that Léonard’s staunch ethical traditionalism would endanger the “Belgian compromise” between believers and secularists – an informal “live and let live” agreement to avoid open cultural war. For much the same reason, Le Soir called the appointment “stupefying.” ”

In effect this socialist feared that the policies of a previous archbishop/cardinal that allowed for a compromise between believers and secularists (as though being secular is a new religion, which I guess it is now) would be threatened by a Catholicism that overcomes the impotency of liberalism that has so infected it in Belgium. In other words, the socialist fears that a traditionalist archbishop will be like Viagra for the Church Militant and threaten the "godless, secularist agenda" of Belgium. He fears the "staunch, ethical traditionalism" of a potent Catholic Church that in Belgium was once a shinning light of Catholicism in Europe!

We can see secularism in this country conspiring with the liberal elite in the Catholic Church, especially in universities, trying to accomplish here what has successfully happened in secular Europe. Just think of Fr. Jenkins wholehearted embrace of President Barack Obama at Notre Dame. The president knows what he is doing in "dividing and conquering" traditional Catholicism and thus promoting his radical, secularist political agenda. He used the Daughter of Charity and the Catholic Health Association to do the same in getting his comprehensive health bill passed through congress. He even gloated about his victory which could not have happened with out Sister's help and her organization!

Belgium, Holland and Austria are warning signs to Catholics in America. The failed liberal experiment there is happening here. Who will stop it?

Tuesday, June 29, 2010


Bishop J. Kevin Boland of the Diocese of Savannah submitted his resignation to Pope Benedict in April upon reaching the canonical age of 75 for retirement. Bishop Boland remains bishop until a new bishop is appointed by our Holy Father. There is no time line for the naming of a new bishop. It could be tomorrow or in two years.

In the meantime, we pray for the man who will be our bishop because he is out there, but it is only known to a small group of people who it will be or could be. It would be the papal nuncio of our country and the Congregation for Bishops in Rome and Pope Benedict eventually. But right now, only God knows.

In this country the process for naming a new bishop is a bit of a secret and I do pray that one day we will have more transparency. Usually the papal nuncio has a list of priests who he has determined might be a good candidate here, there or elsewhere. These names have been submitted by other bishops. Sometimes priests are polled by the nuncio about whom they would recommend. Sometimes priests are asked about the suitability of a potential candidate. All of this is under "pontifical secret." So I can't tell you if I've ever been asked to comment on someone or I think I'm excommunicated. Not a pleasant thing in the Church.

Do you think this process should be more democratic? Should leaders, both clergy and laity, be consulted about their vision for the Diocese, its problems and the type of person who would be the new bishop? Should there be a more open vetting of the various candidates that could be named? By extension of this, we could even apply it to the pastor that will be assigned by the bishop to a parish. What about that. Be nice!!!

At any rate, at St. Joseph Church, we are praying in one of our petitions of the General Intercessions on Sunday that God will guide the process that will lead us to a new bishop and that the one who God calls through the Pope will hear and answer God's call. Apart from that, we have to leave it in God's hands and, oh yes, the papal nuncio, the Congregation for Bishops and Pope Benedict XVI.


Sunday, June 27, 2010


I've just discovered Fr. Barron's You-tube catechesis. I post two for you to enjoy but at the end of each there are additional ones you can watch.

Friday, June 25, 2010


Nazi-like tactics against the Catholic Church in Belgium yesterday!

The New York Times has a relatively straight news report concerning the Police State action taken against the Catholic Church in Belgium yesterday. You can read the story HERE.
Rome Reports video news story

My mother who is 90 years old and lived through World War II in her native Italy as an adult, can tell you about Fascism, Nazism, and Communism. These groups were not that friendly toward the Church and often trumped up exaggerated claims against the Church to carry out tactics to undermine the Church. What happened in Belgium is eerily similar to the police state tactics of another era for which Europe should still harbor shame.

What is more shocking is that the anti-Catholic group, SNAP is recommending these Nazi-like governmental tactics against the Church to become worldwide. That says a great deal about SNAP!

Paranoia against the Catholic Church is sweeping Europe like the hatred of Jews inspired by the Nazis and stereotypical caricatures of the Jews. The secular, godless press in tandem with anti-Catholic lawyers in this country and elsewhere are conspiring to stereotype priests as child molesters and the hierarchy as criminals in a cover-up. How far will it go?

You can read about Nazi tactics against the Catholic Church in Germany in 1937 HERE.


Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, Colorado gave a very fine academic and pastoral speech on the liturgy just yesterday! You can read it HERE!

It is a long and scholarly discourse, but one thing that jumped out at me given the nature of the posts on my blog was the following:

"One of the few people who have wrestled with the issues Guardini raised is a Chicago priest who’s made his own important contributions to the liturgical and intellectual renewal of the Church, Father Robert Barron.

Barron puts the issue this way: “The project is not shaping the liturgy according to the suppositions of the age, but allowing the liturgy to question and shape the suppositions of any age. Is the modern man incapable of the liturgical act? Probably. But this is no ground for despair. Our goal is not to accommodate the liturgy to the world, but to let the liturgy be itself -- a transformative icon of the ordo of God.”

Barron suggests that in the post-conciliar era, the professional Catholic liturgical establishment opted for the former path, trying to adapt the liturgy to the demands of modern culture. I would agree. And I would add that time has shown this to be a dead end. Trying to engineer the liturgy to be more “relevant” and “intelligible” through a kind of relentless cult of novelty, has only resulted in confusion and a deepening of the divide between believers and the true spirit of the liturgy."

Then the Archbishop says:

"In this regard, the Novus Ordo, the new order of the Mass promulgated after the council, has been a great blessing to the Church. Our liturgy gives us the zeal for the evangelization and sanctification of our world. The vernacular has opened up the liturgy’s content in new ways. It has encouraged active, creative participation by all the faithful -- not only in the liturgy but in every aspect of the Church’s mission.

By the way, for the record, I’m also very grateful that the Holy Father has allowed wider use of the older Tridentine form -- not because I personally prefer it, in fact I find the Novus Ordo, properly celebrated, a much richer expression of worship; but because we need access to all of the Church’s heritage of prayer and faith."

And then he says:

"Here’s my second point: The liturgy is a participation in the liturgy of heaven, in which we worship in Spirit and truth with the worldwide Church and the communion of saints.v

This may be the most neglected dimension of the liturgy today. If our liturgies strike us as pedestrian, narrowly parochial, too focused on our own communities and needs; if they lack a powerful sense of the sacred and the transcendent, it’s because we have lost the sense of how our worship participates in the heavenly liturgy."

Then the good Archbishop says:

"Here’s my third point: We need to strive to recover and live with the same vibrant liturgical and evangelical spirituality as the early Christians.

Some of the worst liturgical ideas since the council have been based on a woolly romanticizing about what the early Christians believed and how they worshipped. It has been argued, for example, that the early Church had no sacramental priesthood and that the Eucharist was celebrated with limited ritual, essentially as a meal shared among friends.

I won’t take the time here to rebut these claims. The problem with all such nostalgic-primitivist reconstructions can be summed up in one thought: Nobody risks torture and death for a meal with their friends. And torture and death were the frequent penalty for being caught celebrating the Eucharist in the world of the early Church."

And finally, the Archbishop declares:

"This is a foundation stone to the Catholic belief in the priesthood of all the baptized. The early Christians believed they were heirs to the vocation given to Israel—to be a “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.” By the priesthood of our lives, all baptized believers are to offer, not the blood-sacrifice of animals, but the sacrifice of our hearts, the symbol of our lives, in imitation of Jesus Christ.

We make our sacrifice of praise first and foremost in the Eucharist. This is the meaning behind the council’s call for the “active participation” of the laity in the liturgy.xv This expression unfortunately has been taken as a license for all sorts of external activity, commotion and busy-ness in our worship. That’s not at all what Vatican II had in mind.

“Active participation” refers to the inner movement of our souls, our interior participation in Christ’s action of offering of his Body and Blood. This requires silent spaces and “pauses” in our worship, in which we can collect our emotions and thoughts, and make a conscious act of self-dedication. We are to “lift up our hearts,” and in contrition and humility place them on the altar along with the bread and wine.

But our work does not stop in the Mass.

Everything in our days -- our work, our sufferings, our prayer, our ministries -- everything we do and experience is meant to be offered to God as a spiritual sacrifice. All of our work for the unborn child, the poor and the disabled; all of our work for immigration justice and the dignity of marriage and the family: All of it should be offered for the praise and glory of God’s name and for the salvation of our brothers and sisters."

Does this sound familiar to you? Go back and reread my blog postings! I think we need to elect this man pope. Just my humble opinion!


Normally, we associate Protestantism with sober restraint and good taste, nothing flamboyant that could lead others to mock and ridicule the church, but think again! Catholics have no monopoly on silly looking vestments.

The head of the Church of England, Queen Elizabeth II:

The sleeves on this alb are almost as wide as the cappa magna is long!

What a pity, in England this female head of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA was not allowed to wear this sober mitre but rather had to carry it in her hand! I suspect Queen Elizabeth II as head of the Church of England did not want to be outdone in idiosyncrasies.

Thursday, June 24, 2010


I'm not opposed to bishops and cardinals wearing the cappa magna when it is prescribed by the liturgical books of 1962. Unfortunately when these were made optional but never suppressed in 1969, the bishop or cardinal who chose the option surely looked foolish and made himself an object of scorn and ridicule. It was his own peculiar oddity since it wasn't mandated. Just like the priest who insists that his chasuble be lifted at the elevation in the OF--it's not prescribed, although I don't think altogether suppressed. But in the EF it is not dependent upon is like or dislike, it is prescribed thus saving him from ridicule and the dictatorship of personal preferences.

So I have some photos for you. Which ones of these should cause the most ridicule and scorn to the Church? The ones in the liturgical books or the made up ones that have no basis in the liturgical books?

Just think what the passerby on the street thinks of Catholics. They're wondering what the heck do they do in the Church. Wait until they see the dancers!

Now this is down right shocking and such a throw back to the Renaissance! Liturgical dancers in skimpy attire is so much more Christ-like in the simplicity of it all!

This liturgical oddity is so meaningful and beautiful:

Now this is so much better than the cappa magna and surely will not elicit mockery from others who don't understand this beautiful liturgical custom and ministry

Now this dancing Jesuit, I kid you not, needs a cappa magna or a toppa magna and quick!

Vestal virgins around the pope!


On July 7th it will be 3 years since Pope Benedict XVI issued Summorum Pontificum allowing for every priest in the world to celebrate the 1962 Roman Missal unimpeded by needed special permissions. Pope Benedict issued a letter along with the Motu Proprio called Letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops of the World to Present the "Motu Proprio" on the Use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the Reforms of 1970.
Benedict XVI

You can read the entire letter and the Motu Proprio HERE

In many ways, Pope Benedict is a liberal thinker and pastorally liberal minded. He knows that so many in the Church after the Second Vatican Council promoted the "spirit" of the Second Vatican Council by denigrating all that had preceded the Council including her "unreformed" liturgy. One can still see this adolescent attitude today in many people who think that the Second Vatican Council was a rupture with our Tradition rather than in continuity with it.

The Holy Father brings this point home in his desire to bring internal healing in the Church and to end the nonsensical theology of rupture between the old and the new and to see both as gifts from God. This paragraph toward the end of the letter establishes the Holy Father's rationale for the more liberal allowance of the 1962 Roman Missal:
I now come to the positive reason which motivated my decision to issue this Motu Proprio updating that of 1988. It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church. Looking back over the past, to the divisions which in the course of the centuries have rent the Body of Christ, one continually has the impression that, at critical moments when divisions were coming about, not enough was done by the Church’s leaders to maintain or regain reconciliation and unity. One has the impression that omissions on the part of the Church have had their share of blame for the fact that these divisions were able to harden. This glance at the past imposes an obligation on us today: to make every effort to unable for all those who truly desire unity to remain in that unity or to attain it anew. I think of a sentence in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes: "Our mouth is open to you, Corinthians; our heart is wide. You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections. In return … widen your hearts also!" (2 Cor 6:11-13). Paul was certainly speaking in another context, but his exhortation can and must touch us too, precisely on this subject. Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.


These two "spirit of Vatican II" liturgies with gloriously simple vestments and costumes are to be preferred over the images that I have at the bottom of this post. Yes or no? What feelings do you experience looking at these photos and the photos at the bottom?

When post "spirit of" Vatican II Catholics who embrace all kinds of liturgical novelties and gimmicks see the vesture below, they nearly blow their stack! Now I must say that the cappa magna does elicit from me a mixed reaction. But I must say that my reaction is an uninformed one as I don't fully comprehend styles from the Renaissance period enshrined in the liturgical practices of the Church prior to the Second Vatican Council.

This is one thin skinned and outraged response from a modern Catholic who attended the first EF Mass celebrated by a bishop at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC. You can read his non-triumphalism open mindedness HERE.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
The cappa magna (literally, "great cape"), a form of mantle, is a voluminous ecclesiastical vestment with a long train, proper to cardinals, bishops, and certain other honorary prelates.

The cappa magna is not strictly a liturgical vestment, but only a glorified cappa choralis, or choir cope. That is to say, it is not used when vested as a celebrant at a liturgical service. It is worn in processions or "in choir" (i.e., attending but not celebrating services). Its colour for cardinals is ordinarily red and for bishops violet. Cardinals and papal nuncios are entitled to wear a cappa magna of watered silk.

The cappa magna is ample in volume and provided with a long train and a disproportionately large hood, the lining of the hood used to be of ermine in winter and silk in summer, and was made in such a way as to completely cover not only the back, but also the breast and shoulders. The hood is functional and in earler times was often placed on the head and covered with the galero. This used to be the custom when the pope created a new cardinal at a consistory. Nowadays, the hood is normally worn over the head only during penitential rites. Previously, cardinals who were members of specific religious orders would wear a cappa magna in the color of their order. Nowadays, all cardinals wear red.

It is now rarely used, since the 1969 Instruction on the Dress, Titles and Coats-of-arms of Cardinals, Bishops and Lesser Prelates lays down that:

The cappa magna, always without ermine, is no longer obligatory; it can be used only outside of Rome, in circumstances of very special solemnity. (§ 12)

However, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem still uses the ermine-lined winter cappa, because he is bound by the complex and unalterable rules of the status quo, an 1852 Ottoman firman which regulates the delicate relations between the various religious groups which care for the religious sites in the Holy Land. This anomaly is most evident at the Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve in Bethlehem. The cappa magna is also still used among groups using the Tridentine Mass.

After viewing the photos below, what do you think about these oddities?
This is from a recent celebration of Confirmation in the EF tradition by a bishop in a very poor African community. The Church is quite run down but all of the vestments from altar servers to bishop are exquisite. Many scoff at scenes like this.

This is called the cappa magna and you can see why, it has had a rebirth with the EF Mass being liberated from the chains of suppression:

This head gear was not suppressed and likely won't be:

Papal Tiara suppressed by Pope Paul VI

Wednesday, June 23, 2010


It's a tear jerker!


Today Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal will meet President Barack Obama. It appears that the good general and the good president will have a pow wow over some sarcastic remarks, what some might call snarks, concerning the president's leadership as well as the leadership of others in the president's camp. Clearly this seems to be a case of insubordination on the part of the general. I will be surprised if the general is still in his position after his meeting with the president, unless of course, the president is glad to have those under his command who question everything and even the president's leadership.

There are some parallels to this in the Church today. Everyone is called to mature obedience to God and His Church in the areas of faith and morals and even canon law, yes,canon law. Catholics must follow the laws of the Church as it concerns marriage, ordination, pastoral councils, finance councils and so on.

We must also follow the liturgical norms of the church, which after Vatican II have become more flexible and diverse. For example today many parishes celebrate both forms of the one Roman Rite, the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Form. This was not even possible until about three years ago.

As well, a monumental change in the English Mass is about to be implemented. There are some in the hot houses of academia in the Church who are none to pleased with Pope Benedict's liberal allowance of the EF Mass and the Vatican's insistence that the new English translation of the Mass be a literal translation of the Latin, even in sentence structures. These academics and their students are seeing red and it's not just the red of the rubrics that they are seeing. In fact, the red of the rubrics they've become color blind to years ago.

What's the connection between General McChrystal and public dissenters in the Church toward the legitimate authority of the Magisterium even in non-infallible leadership such as approving a particular English translation of the Mass? Well, the Church leadership sometimes will go the extra mile to keep dissenters in the Church or wait them out or show mercy to them. We've seen this with errant and abusive priests time and time again. In the long run, this tolerance of errant, disrespectful and abusive behavior has undermined the entire Magisterium of the Church. The Magisterium will recover and is recovering, but it will take making strong and decisive decisions against public dissent even in administrative areas of the Church. There will have to be real consequences for such public dissent.

I never thought I would say this, but depending on what happens today with General McChrystal, President Barack Obama may be giving authority figures in the Church a very clear message about dissent, disrespect and the consequences of such. Yes, this leadership will be from the president who praised the president of Notre Dame for having the courage to invite him to speak at last year's commencement ceremonies despite the fact that Fr. Jenkin's was strongly "encouraged" to modify the invitation. How ironic!

Tuesday, June 22, 2010


My staff organized a parish wide surprise celebration of my 30th anniversary as a priest. They had it on Father's Day, although I was ordained on June 7, 1980. I knew nothing about it although early on Sunday I began to feel like I was in the "Twilight Zone." People kept wishing me happy anniversary. I could smell food cooking in the Church from our social hall beneath the Church--clash of food and incense, not a pretty smell! Then I saw my mother who'll be 91 on October 18th, my sister Elizabeth, brother-in-law Bob Smith and two close friends Paul and Linda McKneely sneaking into the 12:10 Mass. Then I knew I had been had! But it was great being had! Thank you to all who made this possible. I'll get even one day!

My staff had a parishioner make this beautiful kneeler as their gift to me. I guess they think I don't pray enough!

My 90 1/2 year old mother and me!

Mama Mia!
30 years has been a nice slice of life!

I want my cake and eat it too!

Only picture I could find of my sister to my right with her back to the camera, then my friend Linda and her husband Paul:


A couple of weeks ago, our diocese ordained two transitional deacons. Diocesan deacons who will be called to the priesthood make two "promises." One is to "celibacy" for the sake of the kingdom and the other is to "obedience" to the bishop and his successors. There is very little wiggle room for interpreting these two promises. Celibacy means chastity, refraining from sexual, genital expression for the sake of the kingdom of God. The healthiest celibates are the ones who do so positively and seek God's grace in the more difficult aspects of this promise especially as it concerns loneliness and the desire for intimacy. However, I know a lot of men and women who have a lot of sex and still are quite lonely and have no real intimacy with those to whom they conjoin themselves.

The promise of obedience to the bishop has everything to do with Church unity. It is not a blind obedience to this, that or the other, but an obedience to the faith and morals of the Church handed onto us in the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium of the Church as well as respect for the teachers of the Church, the Pope and the bishops in union with him even when they teach in a more casual or less official capacity, like promulgating guidelines, or suggesting certain ways of doing things or whatever the case may be. And certainly obedience to the local bishop means cooperating with his plan for the diocese and the personnel policies he has put into place. In other words, there should be obedience towards his administrative leadership also. Obviously this takes a mature approach to obedience and respect for those who are over us, not that we don't sometimes complain.

One of the things that the we Catholics in this country will have to do in the very near future is to implement the new English translation of the Mass. Some say it will be implemented in Advent of 2011. There are those who are so opposed to this new translation that they are fomenting postponement of the implementation of the new translation and calling for yet another revision to it. They simply hate the new translation. There are even some bishops who think we could have gotten a better one.

Part of the controversy goes to Rome which a few years ago under Pope John Paul II ordered that the English translation that had been developed over the course of several years and was almost complete in 1998 be scrapped and a new committee formed to translate it to be more literal with the original Latin. The 1998 translation relied upon a hermeneutic of translation that the Vatican had mandated in 1969 that allowed for equivalency in translating from the Latin rather than literalism.

What Pope John Paul II did in promulgating "Liturgicum Authenticum" and shifting the task of translation to others and scrapping years of work of others was to create a great anger in the group whose translation and work over the course of years was rejected.

But that is water under the bridge now and we have a new translation that is more accurate than our current one and I believe more elegant. However, it is not perfect and there are some long, run on sentences in some of the prayers and one does have to ponder for a moment what is actually being said. Yet, our prayer is to God and I think He knows what is being said. Some people like to pray in tongues, no one understands that but God alone!

So, what do you think about obedience even when it comes to something you might not like or want, like a new and more clunky English translation of the Mass and Pope Benedict's allowance for the EF Mass to be offered for those who would benefit from it and that pastors should see to it that it is offered in parishes regularly and that individuals have a right to the EF for their weddings and funerals?

Sunday, June 20, 2010


This is a sweet video and refers to dads, but it could also refer to fathers, like Catholic priests! It is brief and enjoyable:

Saturday, June 19, 2010


I've been saying all along that the secular media's initial reporting on the sex abuse scandal and its cover-up in 2002 was basically good and did the Church a service. In an interview I did on radio in Augusta a year or so later, I reminded everyone that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and the gates of hell would not prevail against her. The Church would be reformed where needed by the Holy Spirit, right side up, upside down or sideways. And the Holy Spirit has not disappointed using the media as one of His tools.

But the coverage of our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI and the ongoing effects of this scandal in the last six months has been anything but helpful. Much of it old-recycled news reported as though it just happened. Have you noticed that by far, the majority of the cases being reported today that the actual abuse happened in the 1970's and earlier, sometimes fifty and sixty years ago. It is only now that the victims of this abuse from a half century ago have come forward and reported it. Often the priest accused has long since been dead. I have mixed emotions about accusing dead people who can't defend themselves and current bishops who inherited what their predecessor bishops handled poorly.

Of course the secular media never gives a context for how the Church handled things, reporting things with 20/20 hindsight and failing to remind readers that it wasn't until the 1970's and 80's with the advent of talk television and radio that subjects of sex abuse and incest were brought out into the open whether it occurred in the family, secular institutions or the Church. Everyone did their best to keep these taboo subjects quiet for the good of the innocent who didn't really want to hear about it. Even law enforcement would assist public school districts, the medical profession and churches and synagogues in helping to keep stories of their errant professionals off the front page of the newspaper, for the common good, it was thought.

And Any rate, Phil Lawler has a very good analysis on the most recent secular press reporting on this scandal that just won't go away. You can read it HERE.