"Finding Happiness"? - Avoid Disney...

Pictured: the whores, I mean, stars of Disney.

An interesting article; I tend to sympathize with such views. At the very least, I think too much animated TV can quash a child's imagination. Kids in my classes always have references to Disney, commercials, and TV... yet they cannot see real beauty or drama in literature. No wonder, it's crammed down their throats via the TV.

Disney accused by Catholic cleric of corrupting children's minds
A leading Catholic cleric has launched a fierce attack on Disney, claiming it has corrupted children and encouraged greed.
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 9:21PM GMT 29 Nov 2008

Christopher Jamison, the Abbot of Worth in West Sussex, has accused the corporation of "exploiting spirituality" to sell its products and of turning Disneyland into a modern day pilgrimage site.

He argues that it pretends to provide stories with a moral message, but has actually helped to create a more materialistic culture.

In a guide to helping people find happiness, the abbot, who starred in the hit-BBC series The Monastery, warns that society is in danger of losing its soul because of growing consumerism and the decline of religion.

He suggests that many people have become obsessed with work, sex and eating in an attempt to ignore their underlying unhappiness, and criticises corporations and industries that have benefited from promoting false notions of fulfilment.

Fr Jamison, who has been tipped as a contender to succeed Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor as the next Archbishop of Westminster, targets the behaviour of Disney in particular, which he says is "a classic example" of how consumerism is being sold as an alternative to finding happiness in traditional morality.

While he acknowledges that Disney stories carry messages showing good triumphing over evil, he argues this is part of a ploy to persuade people that they should buy Disney products in order to be "a good and happy family".

He cites films such as Sleeping Beauty and 101 Dalmatians that feature moral battles, but get into children's imaginations and make them greedy for the merchandise that goes with them.

"The message behind every movie and book, behind every theme park and T-shirt is that our children's world needs Disney," he says.

"So they absolutely must go to see the next Disney movie, which we'll also want to give them on DVD as a birthday present.

"They will be happier if they live the full Disney experience; and thousands of families around the world buy into this deeper message as they flock to Disneyland."

He continues: "This is the new pilgrimage that children desire, a rite of passage into the meaning of life according to Disney.

"Where once morality and meaning were available as part of our free cultural inheritance, now corporations sell them to us as products."

Fr Jamison, who is one of Britain's most prominent Catholic clerics, claims that brands such as Disney market themselves to be about more than mere materialism to create an addiction to consumption.

"This is basically the commercial exploitation of spirituality," he says, adding that as a result Disney and other corporations "inhabit our imagination".

"Once planted there they can make us endlessly greedy. And that is exactly what they are doing."

The Walt Disney Company, founded in 1923 by brothers Walt and Roy Disney, is one of the world's biggest entertainment companies. It owns 11 theme parks and several television networks, while its Hollywood studios have produced more than 200 feature films.

Last week, the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, expressed similar concerns about the direction of society when he said that social cohesion has been eradicated due to "rampant consumerism and individualism".

In 2006, Lord Layard, the Government's "happiness Tsar", urged for a rethink of economic and social policy after concluding that the pursuit of financial success has led to a rise in depression and emotional impoverishment.

However, in Fr Jamison's new book, Finding Happiness, he suggests that many of the answers can be found by people living more simply.

The book, published this week, urges people to reject the superficial temptations offered by contemporary culture.

He criticises the obsession with celebrity, which he blames for creating jealousy and a society in which people are dissatisfied with their life.

"Celebrity news magazines do no apparent external harm, but are a complete waste of interior time and space.

"Envy tells us to stop facing the challenges of the present life and to live in some future fantasy. Such envy drives a large part of our consumer culture."

People need to learn to control their thoughts, and practice more self-discipline and self-control in their life, he says.

He says there are "eight thoughts" which need to be controlled to help people to discover happiness. Six of them (anger, pride, gluttony, lust, greed, and spiritual apathy or sloth) are found among the list of deadly sins. To this he adds sadness and vanity.

Fr Jamison has risen to be one of Britain's most well-known Catholic clerics following the screening of The Monastery, which was filmed at Worth Abbey where he is abbot.

Remember, just follow your dreams....

What the mega-churches are up to...

Say "hi" to Pastor Ed Young (seriously).


Check out this absurd story.

Have Seven Days of Sex, Do It For The Baby Jesus
Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 12:06:39 PM

What in the Lord's name is going on with religion in this country? Some Christian leaders have decided that The Bible is subtitled "Jesus Christ's Guide To Sex," and are spending all their time on the pulpit preaching about what you should do with your noo-nees and hee-haws.

On the scarier side, you have people using The Bible to decide which kind of legal agreements people should be able to enter. On the just plain creepy side, you've got preachers advocating an event called "Seven Days of Sex."

Meet Pastor Ed Young. He's totally cool, he understands. He's not stuffy and out of it like those other men of God. You can tell by his peroxide dye job, his crucifix choker, and his tendency to preach in whisker fade, boot cut jeans. The man has built up an empire of churches, with four campuses in the Dallas/Fort Worth area and another right here in Miami.

He's advocating that his married parishioners take up his challenge to have seven days of sex. He jokes that "that's just a normal week" for his wife and him, which does not make me want to gouge my mind's eye out with a dull spork at all.

Video of the "Seven Days of Sex," uh, teaser after the jump.

You need to click on this link and watch this 'pastor' in action at his 'church' (you need to scroll down just a little to get to the video). Hilarious!

Look at the way the 'church' is decorated... looks like Vegas!

And what about the 'pastor's' (he looks more like a guy from
Sopranos with that black silk shirt) idea? Hmmmmm.

This guy/'church' would make the Corinthians look like they were in great shape to St. Paul.

Gay mob assaults peaceful Christains protesting prop 8

From Rod Dreher.

Mark Shea points to this video of a small group of peaceable Christians who had to be protected by a phalanx of San Francisco police as they walked through the gay Castro District in San Francisco. Otherwise, it's clear they would have been assaulted even worse than they were before the riot police arrived.

This is terrifying. This ought to be on the national news. If this were a Christian mob surrounding gay-rights campaigners, it certainly would be -- and should be, as no peaceful protester in this country should be subject to this threat. (And no, this wasn't a made- up thing: here's how a local SFO TV station covered it).

Watch this, and tell me these people [Update: by which I mean the enraged activist core, not all gays -- RD.] aren't going to come against churches full force once they have the civil rights laws on their side.

Tell me why Christians and others who oppose this mob don't have to fear. These people have no idea, no idea at all, what kind of response this kind of thing may call up. One of the members of the Christian group, which had been singing hymns in the street, tells of how they were assaulted with urine, and worse:

After just singing and worshiping God for a while, Roger decided that we should all hold hands in a circle and continue singing. So we did.

Someone (Actually a person who came up and hugged and kissed some of us who he knew from the past) convinced some people that we were there to protest against the no on 8 campaign.

Then some guy who was dressed up like one of the sisters (The sisters of perpetual indulgence is a group of men who dress up like nuns and call themselves the spiritual authority of the Castro.) took a curtain-type thing (Which I think they use to curse people) and wrapped it around us.

Then a crowd started gathering. We began to sing "Amazing Grace", and basically sang that song the whole night. (At some points we also sang "Nothing but the Blood of Jesus" and "Oh the Blood of Jesus".) At first, they just shouted at us, using crude, rude, and foul language and calling us names like "haters" and "bigots". Since it was a long night, I can't even begin to remember all of the things that were shouted and/or chanted at us. Then, they started throwing hot coffee, soda and alcohol on us and spitting (and maybe even peeing) on us. Then, a group of guys surrounded us with whistles, and blasted them inches away from our ears continually. Then, they started getting violent and started shoving us. At one point a man tried to steal one of our Bibles. Chrisdene noticed, so she walked up to him and said "Hey, that's not yours, can you please give it back?". He responded by hitting her on the head with the Bible, shoving her to the ground, and kicking her. I called the cops, and when they got there, they pulled her out of the circle and asked her if she wanted to press charges. She said "No, tell him I forgive him."

Afterwards, she didn't rejoin us in the circle, but she made friends with one of the people in the crowd, and really connected heart to heart. Roger got death threats. As the leader of our group, people looked him in the eyes and said "I am going to kill you.", and they were serious. A cop heard one of them, and confronted him. (This part is kinda graphic, so you should skip the paragraph if you don't want to be offended.) It wasn't long before the violence turned to perversion. They were touching and grabbing me, and trying to shove things in my butt, and even trying to take off my pants - basically trying to molest me. I used one hand to hold my pants up, while I used the other arm to hold one of the girls. The guys huddled around all the girls, and protected them.

This story of conversion is simply mind-blowing

St. Thomas Aquinas, ora pro nobis!

Madrid, Nov 12, 2008 / 09:21 pm (CNA).- The Spanish daily “La Razon” has published an article on the pro-life conversion of a former “champion of abortion.” Stojan Adasevic, who performed 48,000 abortions, sometimes up to 35 per day, is now the most important pro-life leader in Serbia, after 26 years as the most renowned abortion doctor in the country.

“The medical textbooks of the Communist regime said abortion was simply the removal of a blob of tissue,” the newspaper reported. “Ultrasounds allowing the fetus to be seen did not arrive until the 80s, but they did not change his opinion. Nevertheless, he began to have nightmares.”

In describing his conversion, Adasevic “dreamed about a beautiful field full of children and young people who were playing and laughing, from 4 to 24 years of age, but who ran away from him in fear. A man dressed in a black and white habit stared at him in silence. The dream was repeated each night and he would wake up in a cold sweat. One night he asked the man in black and white who he was. ‘My name is Thomas Aquinas,’ the man in his dream responded. Adasevic, educated in communist schools, had never heard of the Dominican genius saint. He didn’t recognize the name” [woah....]

“Why don’t you ask me who these children are?” St. Thomas asked Adasevic in his dream.

“They are the ones you killed with your abortions,’ St. Thomas told him.

“Adasevic awoke in amazement and decided not to perform any more abortions,” the article stated.

“That same day a cousin came to the hospital with his four months-pregnant girlfriend, who wanted to get her ninth abortion—something quite frequent in the countries of the Soviet bloc. The doctor agreed. Instead of removing the fetus piece by piece, he decided to chop it up and remove it as a mass. However, the baby’s heart came out still beating. Adasevic realized then that he had killed a human being,” [Good Lord. How terrible, but how wonderfully the Holy Ghost indicted this man and converted him.]

After this experience, Adasevic “told the hospital he would no longer perform abortions. Never before had a doctor in Communist Yugoslavia refused to do so. They cut his salary in half, fired his daughter from her job, and did not allow his son to enter the university.” [bastards]

After years of pressure and on the verge of giving up, he had another dream about St. Thomas.

“You are my good friend, keep going,’ the man in black and white told him. Adasevic became involved in the pro-life movement and was able to get Yugoslav television to air the film ‘The Silent Scream,’ by Doctor Bernard Nathanson, two times.”

Adasevic has told his story in magazines and newspapers throughout Eastern Europe. He has returned to the Orthodox faith of his childhood and has studied the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas.

“Influenced by Aristotle, Thomas wrote that human life begins forty days after fertilization,” Adasevic wrote in one article. La Razon commented that Adasevic “suggests that perhaps the saint wanted to make amends for that error.” Today the Serbian doctor continues to fight for the lives of the unborn.

Today's readings: faith is not an experience or feeling, but an "obedience of the mind"

Today the Church celebrates : St. Rose Philippine, Feast of Basilicas of Sts. Peter & Paul

Book of Revelation 3,1-6.14-22.

"To the angel of the church in Sardis, write this: " 'The one who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars says this: "I know your works, that you have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Be watchful and strengthen what is left, which is going to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. Remember then how you accepted and heard; keep it, and repent. If you are not watchful, I will come like a thief, and you will never know at what hour I will come upon you. However, you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; they will walk with me dressed in white, because they are worthy. " '"The victor will thus be dressed in white, and I will never erase his name from the book of life but will acknowledge his name in the presence of my Father and of his angels. " '"Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches."' "To the angel of the church in Laodicea, write this: " 'The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the source of God's creation, says this: "I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, 'I am rich and affluent and have no need of anything,' and yet do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire so that you may be rich, and white garments to put on so that your shameful nakedness may not be exposed, and buy ointment to smear on your eyes so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and chastise. Be earnest, therefore, and repent. " '"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, (then) I will enter his house and dine with him, and he with me. I will give the victor the right to sit with me on my throne, as I myself first won the victory and sit with my Father on his throne. " '"Whoever has ears ought to hear what the Spirit says to the churches."'"

Psalms 15(14),2-3.3-4.5.

Whoever walks without blame, doing what is right, speaking truth from the heart;
Who does not slander a neighbor, does no harm to another, never defames a friend;
Who does not slander a neighbor, does no harm to another, never defames a friend;
Who disdains the wicked, but honors those who fear the LORD; Who keeps an oath despite the cost,
lends no money at interest, accepts no bribe against the innocent. III Whoever acts like this shall never be shaken.


Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 19,1-10.

He came to Jericho and intended to pass through the town. Now a man there named Zacchaeus, who was a chief tax collector and also a wealthy man, was seeking to see who Jesus was; but he could not see him because of the crowd, for he was short in stature. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree in order to see Jesus, who was about to pass that way. When he reached the place, Jesus looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house." And he came down quickly and received him with joy. When they all saw this, they began to grumble, saying, "He has gone to stay at the house of a sinner." But Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, "Behold, half of my possessions, Lord, I shall give to the poor, and if I have extorted anything from anyone I shall repay it four times over." And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house because this man too is a descendant of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost."

Copyright © Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, USCCB



Commentary of the day :

Blessed Jan van Ruusbroec (1293-1381), Canon Regular
A Mirror of eternal blessedness (©Classics of Western Spirituality)

"Today I must stay at your house"


Some people are very like Zacchaeus. They desire to see Jesus as he is. All power of reason and all natural light are too short and small for this, so they run ahead of all crowds and all the multiplicity of creatures. Through faith and love they climb up to the highest part of their mind, where their spirit lives in its freedom, devoid of images and obstacles. It is there that Jesus is seen, known, and loved in his divinity, for there he is always present to the free and exalted spirit which has risen above itself in love of him. Jesus there flows forth with a fullness of grace and favors.

But he says to all: "Come down quickly, for the exalted freedom of the spirit cannot be maintained except through lowly obedience of mind. You must know and love me as both God and a human being, higher than all and lower than all. You will savor me when I raise you up above all things and above yourself to myself, and when you lower yourself beneath all things and beneath yourself to me and for my sake. Then I will have to come to your house and remain living with you and in you, and you with me and in me."

When these persons know, taste, and feel this, they come down quickly in great disdain of themselves, and with a humble heart and true displeasure over their life and all their works they say: "Lord, I am not worthy-but am truly unworthy-that I should receive your glorious body in the blessed Sacrament into the sinful house of my body and soul. But be gracious to me, Lord, and have mercy on my poor life and all my transgressions."

BXVI on the parable of the 'talents'

On Investing Our Talents
"The Mistaken Attitude Is That of Fear"

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 16, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is the address Benedict XVI delivered today before reciting the Angelus together with the crowds gathered in St. Peter's Square.

* * *

Dear Brothers and Sisters!

The Word of God this Sunday -- the penultimate of the liturgical year -- invites us to be vigilant and active, in awaiting the return of the Lord Jesus at the end of time. The Gospel passage tells the parable of the talents, reported by St. Matthew (25:14-30). The "talent" was an ancient Roman coin of great value and precisely on account of the popularity of this parable it has become synonymous with personal gifts, which everyone is called to develop.

In reality, the text speaks of "a man who, going abroad, called his servants and handed over his goods to them" (Matthew 25:14). The man in the parable represents Christ himself, the servants are his disciples and the talents are the gifts that Jesus gives them. For this reason such gifts, apart from natural qualities, represent the riches that the Lord Jesus has left us as a legacy, so that we bear fruit with them: his Word, deposited in the holy Gospel; baptism, which renews us in the Holy Spirit; prayer -- the "Our Father" -- that we address to God as sons united in the Son; his forgiveness, which he commanded to be brought to all; the sacrament of his immolated Body and his Blood that he poured out. In a word: the Kingdom of God, which is Christ himself, present and living among us.

This is the treasure that Jesus has entrusted to his friends, at the end of his brief life on earth. Today's parable considers the interior attitude with which this gift is accepted and valued. The mistaken attitude is that of fear: The servant who fears his master and fears his return, hides the coin in the ground and it does not produce any fruit. This happens, for example, to those who, having received baptism, Communion, and confirmation bury such gifts beneath prejudices, a false image of God that paralyzes faith and works, so as to betray the Lord's expectations.

But the parable puts greater emphasis on the good fruits born by the disciples who, happy at the gift received, did not hide it with fear and jealously, but made it fruitful, sharing it, participating in it. Indeed, what Christ gives us is multiplied when we give it away! It is a treasure that is made to be spent, invested, shared with all, as the Apostle Paul, that great administrator of Jesus' talents, has taught us.

The Gospel teaching, which the liturgy offers us today, has even entered into the historical and social sphere, promoting an active mentality among Christian populations. But the central message regards the spirit of responsibility with which the Kingdom of God is to be accepted: responsibility toward God and toward humanity. This attitude is perfectly incarnated in the heart of the Virgin Mary who, receiving the most precious of gifts, Jesus himself, offered him to the world with great love. Let us ask her to help us to be "good and faithful servants," so that one day we can take part "in the joy of our Lord."

[Translation by Joseph G. Trabbic]

[After praying the Angelus, the Holy Father greeted the crowds in several languages. In English, he said:]

I extend warm greetings to all the English-speaking pilgrims and visitors present at today's Angelus. May your time in Rome be filled with divine blessings of joy and peace. On this third Sunday of November, we remember in a special way all those who have died as a result of traffic accidents. We pray for their eternal rest and for the consolation of their families who grieve their loss. Dear brothers and sisters, I implore everyone - drivers, passengers and pedestrians - to heed carefully the words of Saint Paul in the Liturgy of the Word today: "stay sober and alert". Our behavior on the roads should be characterized by responsibility, consideration and a respect for others. May the Virgin Mary lead us safely along streets and highways throughout the world.

Benedict XVI on John Paul II and Vatican II

"A Qualified Interpreter and Coherent Witness"

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 14, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is the address Benedict XVI sent Oct. 28 to the international congress on the theme "The Second Vatican Council in the Pontificate of John Paul II." The event was sponsored by the St. Bonaventure Theological Faculty and the Institute for Documentation and Study of the Pontificate of John Paul II.

* * *

To the Most Reverend Father Marco Tasca
Minister General of the Friars Minor Conventual and Grand Chancellor
of The Pontifical Theological Faculty of St Bonaventure Seraphicum

I learned with joy that the Pontifical Theological Faculty, together with the Institute for Documentation and Study of the Pontificate of John Paul II, has chosen to promote an International Congress on the theme "The Second Vatican Council in the Pontificate of John Paul II". With this initiative the Theological Faculty's intention among other things, is to develop a deeper reflection on the current situation of the Church in view of the celebration of the eighth centenary of the Rule that St Francis presented to Pope Innocent III in 1209, for which he received verbal approval. With this important scientific event the Institute for Documentation and Study proposes to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the election of Karol Wojtyla to the See of Peter with a view to making better known the great Pontiff's teaching and love for the Church in the historical and theological context of the Council which was so dear to his heart.

Dear Minister General, as I address my cordial greeting to you, I ask you to express to your Conventual Confreres, the Professors of the Athenaeum, the Director and Members of the Institute and all who are taking part in the Congress the sentiments of fatherly affection that I feel for each one of them.

I can only rejoice at the choice of a theme that unites two topics of quite special interest to me: on the one hand, the Second Vatican Council, in which I had the honour of taking part as an expert and on the other, the figure of my beloved Predecessor John Paul II who made a significant personal contribution to that Council as a Council Father and subsequently, by God's will, became its first executor during the years of his Pontificate. In this context it seems only right also to recall that the Council sprang from the great heart of Pope John XXIII, the 50th anniversary of whose election to the Chair of Peter we are commemorating today, 28 October. I said that the Council sprang from John XXIII's heart, yet it would be more accurate to say that ultimately, like all the great events in the Church's history, it came from the Heart of God, from his saving will: "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (Jn 3: 16). To make divine salvation accessible to contemporary man was Pope John XXIII's main reason for convoking the Council, and the Fathers worked with this in mind. For this very reason, "As the years have passed, the Conciliar Documents" as I recalled on 20 April 2005, the day after my election to the Pontificate, "have lost none of their timeliness; indeed, their teachings are proving particularly relevant to the new situation of the Church and the current globalized society" (Message to Cardinals, 20 April 2005).

In practically all his documents, and especially in his decisions and his behaviour as Pontiff, John Paul II accepted the fundamental petitions of the Second Vatican Council, thus becoming a qualified interpreter and coherent witness of it. His constant concern was to make known to all the advantages that could stem from acceptance of the Conciliar vision, not only for the good of the Church but also for that of civil society itself and of the people working in it. "We have contracted a debt to the Holy Spirit", he said in his Reflection prior to the Angelus on 6 October 1985, referring to the extraordinary session of the Synod of Bishops which was about to be celebrated precisely in order to reflect on the Church's response during the 20 years that had passed since the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council. "We have contracted a debt to the Spirit of Christ.... This, in fact, is the Spirit who speaks to the Churches (cf. Rv 2: 7); during the Council and by means of it, his word has become particularly expressive and decisive for the Church" (ore, 14 October 1985, p. 12).

We are all truly indebted to him for this extraordinary ecclesial event. The multiple doctrinal legacy that we find in its Dogmatic Constitutions, Declarations and Decrees still stimulates us to deepen our knowledge of the Word of God in order to apply it to the Church in the present day, keeping clearly in mind the many needs of the men and women of the contemporary world who are extremely in need of knowing and experiencing the light of Christian hope. The Synod of Bishops that has just ended placed these needs at the centre of its own rich and fruitful reflections, reaffirming the hope expressed in the past by the Constitution Dei Verbum: "So may it come that, by the reading and study of the sacred books, "the Word of God may speed on and triumph' (2 Thes 3: 1), and the treasure of the Revelation entrusted to the Church may more and more fill the hearts of men" (n. 26), bringing them the salvation of God and with it authentic happiness.

This is a commitment that I am pleased to entrust in particular to you, dear Professors of the Pontifical Theological Faculty, who venerate the Seraphic Doctor St Bonaventure as its heavenly Patron. In the wealth of his thought, St Bonaventure can offer interpretative keys which are still up-to-date and with which you may approach the Conciliar Documents to seek in them satisfactory answers to the many questions of our time. The anxiety for humanity's salvation which motivated the Council Fathers, guiding their commitment in the search for solutions to the numerous problems of the day was equally alive in St Bonaventure's heart as he faced the hopes and anguish of the people of his own time. On the other hand, since the basic questions that man carries in his heart do not change with the changing of times, the answers the Seraphic Doctor attained have remained substantially applicable also in our day. In particular, the Itinerarium mentis in Deum that St Bonaventure composed in 1259 has remained valid. Although it is a guide to the heights of mystical theology, this precious little book also speaks to all Christians of what is essential in their lives. The ultimate goal of all our activities must be communion with the living God. Thus, for the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council too, the ultimate aim of all the individual aspects of the Church's renewal was to lead the faithful to the living God revealed in Jesus Christ.

I am certain that the Pontifical Faculty of St Bonaventure and the Institute for Documentation and Study on the Pontificate of John Paul II will continue to develop their reflection on the Conciliar texts, also availing themselves of the insights shared during this Congress. I assure you in this regard of the support of my prayers and, as a pledge of heavenly illumination for work that will yield abundant fruit, I impart the Apostolic Blessing to you, Most Reverend Minister General, to the Relators of the Congress and to all the participants, as well as to the John Paul II Foundation which generously contributed to it.

From the Vatican, 28 October 2008

BENEDICTVS PP. XVI

Advertisements supporting adultery???!!

Bishops Speak Out Against Adultery Ads
Internet Site Promotes Dating Service for Married People

BOSTON, Massachusetts, NOV. 14, 2008 (Zenit.org).- The bishops of Massachusetts are defending the institution of marriage in the face of advertising in the state that promotes adultery.

The bishops said they were "compelled to speak in support of marriage" after seeing advertisements of an Internet dating site for married people looking for adulterous relationships.

The statement was published today and signed by Cardinal Sean O'Malley, the archbishop of Boston, Bishop Timothy McDonnell of Springfield, Bishop George Coleman of Fall River and Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester.

"This wrongful enterprise threatens not only the oldest and most foundational of human institutions but also the common good of all," the bishops said. "Marriage requires honesty, loyalty, trust, self-sacrifice, personal responsibility, respect, and commitment.

"Marriage is a vocation that benefits all of society by building and strengthening human relationships within the family home and beyond with relatives, neighbors and one’s community. Marriage is the basis for the family, the fundamental human society. A healthy committed marriage helps to insure the well-being of children, create social stability and improve the quality of life for all citizens."

The prelates said the advertising "will not benefit families and the ads send the wrong message to our young."

"The ad campaign will further erode the unique and important role that marriage has in contributing to the common good," they said. "Where marriage is weakened the social cost is enormous."

Commending the media outlets that refused the ads, the bishops asked more to do the same.

"We honor and support those couples who have committed themselves to each other in the vocation of marriage," they added, "and offer prayers that they remain strong in the face of increasing social pressures to abandon their promise of fidelity."

What the...

What could possibly be the point of such a 'technological advancement'? This can only mean that human dignity somehow has been undermined or will be by such a development. Who is paying for this 'research'?



Here's the story...

The robot that can pull faces just like a human being
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 6:05 PM on 12th November 2008

Scientists have created the first 'humanoid' robot that can mimic the facial expressions and lip movements of a human being.
'Jules' - a disembodied androgynous robotic head - can automatically copy the movements, which are picked up by a video camera and mapped on to the tiny electronic motors in his skin.
It can grin and grimace, furrow its brow and 'speak' as his software translates real expressions observed through video camera 'eyes'.

Jules mimics the expressions by converting the video image into digital commands that make the robot's servos and motors produce mirrored movements.
And it all happens in real time as the robot can interpret the commands at 25 frames per second.
The project, called 'Human-Robot Interaction', was devised at the Bristol Robotics Laboratory (BRL), run by the University of the West of England and the University of Bristol.
A team of robotics engineers - Chris Melhuish, Neill Campbell and Peter Jaeckel - spent three-and-a-half years developing the breakthrough software to create interaction between humans and artificial intelligence
Jules has 34 internal motors covered with flexible rubber ('Frubber') skin, which was commissioned from roboticist David Hanson in the US for BRL.

It was originally programmed to act out a series of movements - as can be seen in the video - where 'Jules' talks about 'destroying Wales'.
The technology works using ten stock human emotions - such as happiness, sadness, concern etc - that the team 'taught' Jules via programming.
The software then maps what it sees to Jules's face to combine expressions instantly to mimic those being shown by a human subject.
'We have a repertoire of behaviours that somehow is dynamic', Chris Melhuish said.
'If you want people to be able to interact with machines, then you've got to be able to do it naturally. [did he just say "naturally"??? Is there anything natural about interacting with inanimate objects? Oh, boy.]

...

'All these are requirements for robotic companions, assisting astronauts in space or care robots employed as social companions for the elderly. [yeah. We can't stand dealing with old, dying people, so we'll create people to deal with their crap! Insanity.] 'Unlike most research projects, the focus lies on dynamic, subtle, facial expressions, rather than static exaggerated facial displays.
'Copycat robot heads have been created before, but never with realistic human-looking faces.'
But not everyone is impressed by Jules's mastery of mimicry. [really?! Thank God.]Kerstin Dautenhahn, a robotics researcher at the University of Herefordshire, believes that people may be disconcerted by humanoid automatons that simply look 'too human'.
'Research has shown that if you have a robot that has many human-like features, then people might actually react negatively towards it,' she said.
'If you expose vulnerable people, like children or elderly people, to something that they might mistake for human, then you would automatically encourage a social relationship.
'They might easily be fooled to think that this robot not only looks like a human and behaves like a human, but that it can also feel like a human. And that's not true.' [Wow. A scientist employing common sense; "this could hurt people"]It is hoped that the technology developed in Jules will help create robots for use in space, to accompany astronauts on solo missions, and in healthcare settings and nursing homes.

Read the whole thing.

Which is more important for Catholics: Word or Eucharist?

An answer nicely laid out by Zenit's staff writer, Fr. McNamara.

Eucharist vs. the Word
And More on Forms of Absolution

ROME, NOV. 11, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q: Could you succinctly state the relationship between the importance of the Eucharist versus the Word of God in the liturgy of the Mass? I was on a Eucharistic retreat with a group of Catholics, when the leader of our group said that we as Catholics believe that the Word of God is as important as the Eucharist. I have always been taught that the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith, but after she said this I did some research into adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and the Word of God, and it seemed that there was more than a little validity to her statement since the "Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us" ... and God speaks to us though his inspired Word, etc. Please clarify this. -- N.C., Cleveland, Ohio

A: I would like to begin this answer by recalling a conversation I had during my seminary years with an elderly Catholic layman while on vacation in upstate New York. This wise gentleman, of Lithuanian descent, rented canoes in the Adirondacks and often dealt with evangelical Christians who tried to win him over by saying they had the Good Book. He replied that as a Catholic he not only had the Book but moreover frequently met the Author.

Although one might discuss the theological precision of the anecdote, it does reflect a fundamental truth with respect to the different forms in which Christ is present to us. God certainly speaks to us through his inspired Word, and the Church teaches that he is present when the Scriptures are read. This presence, however, as Pope Paul VI teaches in his encyclical "Mysterium Fidei" is a real but transitory presence enduring while the liturgical reading lasts. It is, therefore, not of the same class as the substantial real presence found in the Eucharist.

From another angle we can also consider how Scripture is fulfilled in Eucharistic worship.

"The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us" this is the foundation of our faith. However, the same Word who took flesh in Mary's womb, who died, rose and ascended, is the same one who said, "This is my body … this is my blood," and is thus present body, soul and divinity under the species of bread and wine. In every Eucharistic celebration the entire mystery of Christ from the incarnation to the ascension is truly made present anew, albeit under the veil of sign and symbol.

From this perspective the Eucharist is thus "more important" than Scripture because Scripture's ultimate goal is to lead us to union with Christ through full participation in the Mass. The Mass is a sharing in the worship which the Incarnate Word offers to the Father in the Holy Spirit.

Yet, from a different perspective and precisely in the context of the Mass, the question as to the relative importance of Scripture vis-[-vis the Eucharist is relatively meaningless.

In every Mass we are like the disciples going to Emmaus, except we already know that Christ is present among us. Like them, our hearts should burn as we listen to Moses, the prophets and the New Covenant as they speak about Christ. At the same time we are aware that in the end we will recognize him only in the breaking of bread.

Therefore it is not a question of the superiority of one over the other but of an inseparable interrelationship and ordering of one toward the other. Precisely because Scripture is ordered toward Eucharistic worship, the celebration's external form necessarily follows the road to Emmaus. All the historical evidence available shows us that the celebration of the Word and the Eucharist have always formed a single act of worship. Likewise, Scripture is so intimately intertwined within the fabric of every single prayer that we can say that without Scripture there could be no Catholic liturgy.

Conversely, and from a historical perspective it is also partially true that without liturgy there would be no Scripture, for one of the major criteria for determining which books eventually made it into the biblical canon was whether the book was read in the liturgical assembly.

Therefore the contraposition of Word and Eucharist does not correspond to an authentically Catholic vision of their intimate relationship.

It is true that, historically, Catholics have not been assiduous Bible readers. During the greatest part of the Church's existence books were a luxury few could read and fewer could afford. The lack of direct Bible reading did not mean that there was total biblical illiteracy. Most Christians were imbued with biblical salvation history through church decorations in painting, sculpture and stained glass. The huge reredos enshrining the high altars of many cathedrals harmoniously wove in the stories of Genesis, kings, prophets, Jesus' ancestry and the principal events of the New Testament, while centering everything on the sacrifice of the altar. In this way they provided a visible scriptural background to Catholic worship.

In today's changed circumstances the Church actively encourages all Catholics to possess, read and meditate on the Good Book, while not forgetting to make frequent visits to the Author.

BXVI on Pius XII's influence on Vatican II

Benedict puts 'the hermeneutic of continuity' in a nice perspective via Pius XII. Note how foolish modern scholars try to put a rift between the pre and post conciliar Church, and how Benedict smashes that with the 1,000 and 200 citations in the official documents of the council. Again, thanks, Papa Ratzinger.

Benedict XVI Notes Pius XII's Impact on Vatican II
Says Faithful Should Thank God for Gift of Late Pope

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 11, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI says it is impossible to understand the Second Vatican Council without Pius XII's pontificate -- his writings are the second most cited source in the council documents.

The German Pontiff spoke of his predecessor Saturday when he received in audience participants from the Thursday-Saturday conference on "The Heritage of the Magisterium of Pius XII." The conference was organized by the Pontifical Gregorian and Lateran Universities and marked the 50th anniversary of Pius XII's death, Oct. 9, 1958.

Benedict XVI's address focused on Vatican II as a continuation with the past and Church tradition, as carried on by the pontificate that immediately preceded the council's convocation.

"Certainly the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is a living and vital organism, which is not stuck in what it was 50 years ago," the Pope affirmed. "But this development happens with continuity. That is why the heritage of the magisterium of Pius XII has been taken up by the Second Vatican Council and proposed to successive generations of Christians."

The Holy Father noted that in the oral and written interventions from the council fathers, there are more than 1,000 references to the magisterium of Pius XII.

And, though not all of the council documents have footnotes, in those that do, he said, "The name of Pius XII appears more than 200 times."

That means, the Pontiff said, "that with the exception of sacred Scripture, this Pope is the authorized source that the council cites most frequently."

"Moreover," he continued, "the references to these documents are not, in general, mere explanatory notes, but rather frequently are authentic integral parts of the conciliar texts; they do not just offer justifications in support of what the text affirms, but further offer an interpretive key."

The German Pope explained that he offered a broader look at the late Pontiff, given that "when [Pius XII] has been spoken of in recent years, attention has been concentrated excessively on one problem, generally dealt with in a rather unilateral way."

Modern press reports regarding Pius XII are generally about accusations that the Pope lacked zeal in condemning the Nazi regime and the Holocaust, despite the fact that historians and witnesses have provided ample evidence to the contrary.

"Independently of other considerations, this has impeded an adequate vision of a figure of great historical-theological depth like that of Pius XII," Benedict XVI added. "His teaching continues giving light today in the Church.

"In the person of the Sovereign Pontiff Pius XII, the Lord has given his Church an exceptional gift, for which all of us should thank him."

Latin deemed 'elitist' & 'discriminatory' in England!

"TE ODIO = I HATE YOU"

This is the latest from England...

Councils ban 'elitist' and 'discriminatory' Latin phrases
They are phrases that are repeated ad nauseam and are taken as bona fide English, but councils have now overturned the status quo by banning staff from using Latin terms, which they claim are elitist and discriminatory.

By Chris Hastings, Public Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 12:35AM GMT 02 Nov 2008

Local authorities have ordered employees to stop using the words and phrases on documents and when communicating with members of the public and to rely on wordier alternatives instead.

The ban has infuriated classical scholars who say it is diluting the world's richest language and is the "linguistic equivalent of ethnic cleansing".

Bournemouth Council, which has the Latin motto Pulchritudo et Salubritas, meaning beauty and health, has listed 19 terms it no longer considers acceptable for use.

This includes bona fide, eg (exempli gratia), prima facie, ad lib or ad libitum, etc or et cetera, ie or id est, inter alia, NB or nota bene, per, per se, pro rata, quid pro quo, vis-a-vis, vice versa and even via.

Its list of more verbose alternatives, includes "for this special purpose", in place of ad hoc and "existing condition" or "state of things", instead of status quo.

In instructions to staff, the council said: "Not everyone knows Latin. Many readers do not have English as their first language so using Latin can be particularly difficult."

The details of banned words have emerged in documents obtained from councils by the Sunday Telegraph under The Freedom of Information Act.

Of other local authorities to prohibit the use of Latin, Salisbury Council has asked staff to avoid the phrases ad hoc, ergo and QED (quod erat demonstrandum), while Fife Council has also banned ad hoc as well as ex officio.

Professor Mary Beard, a professor of Classics at the University of Cambridge said: "This is absolute bonkers and the linguistic equivalent of ethnic cleansing. English is and always has been a language full of foreign words. It has never been an ethnically pure language."

Dr Peter Jones, co-founder of the charity Friends of Classics said "This sort of thing sends out the message that language is about nothing more than the communication of very basic information in the manner of a railway timetable.

"But it is about much more than that. The great strength of English is that it has a massive infusion of Latin. We have a very rich lexicon with almost two sets of words for everything.

"To try and wipe out the richness does a great disservice to the language. It demeans it. I am all for immigrants raising their sights not lowering them. Plain English and Latin phrasing are not diametrically opposed concepts."

Henry Mount the author of the bestselling book Amo, Amos, Amat and All That, a lighthearted guide to the language, said: "Latin words and phrases can often sum up thoughts and ideas more often that the alternatives which are put forward. They are tremendously useful, quicker and nicer sounding.

"They are also English words. You will find etc or et cetera in an English dictionary complete with its explanation."

However, the Plain English Campaign has congratulated the councils for introducing the bans.

Marie Clair, its spokesman, said: "If you look at the diversity of all our communities you have got people for whom English is a second language. They might mistake eg for egg and little things like that can confuse people.

"At the same time it is important to remember that the national literacy level is about 12 years old and the vast majority of people hardly ever use these terms.

"It is far better to use words people understand. Often people in power are using the words because they want to feel self important. It is not right that voters should suffer because of some official's ego."

Several councils, including Aberdeenshire, and Blackburn and Darwen, have also prohibited the use of the French phrase in lieu, while many local authorities have drawn up lists of English words, which cannot be used as they are considered politically incorrect.

Amber Valley Council, in Derbyshire, has told staff it is no longer acceptable to use language "that portrays once sex as subordinate to the other".

Staff have been instructed to say "synthetic" rather than "man made", "lay person" instead of "lay man", "people in general" in place of "man in the street", "one person show" rather than "one man show" and "ancestors" instead of "forefathers".

Broadland Council, in Norfolk, has banned "housewife" and replaced it with "homemaker" and asked staff to refer to "staffing" rather than "manning" levels.

Several councils including Blyth Valley and Weymouth have banned the phrase disabled toilet and disabled parking because they imply that the facilities themselves are disabled. They have renamed them accessible.

There are some hilarious ironies in what the spokesman for "the Plain English Campaign"
said: "It is not right that voters should suffer because of some official's ego."
I would also interject that if one confuses eg for "egg," he doesn't deserve breakfast!

Franken & Coleman... only 211 vote difference?

Minnesota Ripe for Election Fraud
Monday, November 10, 2008

By John R. Lott Jr.

Minnesota is becoming to 2008 politics what Florida was in 2000 or Washington State in 2004 -- a real mess. The outcome will determine whether Democrats get 58 members of the U.S. Senate, giving them an effective filibuster-proof vote on many issues.

When voters woke up on Wednesday morning after the election, Senator Norm Coleman led Al Franken by what seemed like a relatively comfortable 725 votes. By Wednesday night, that lead had shrunk to 477. By Thursday night, it was down to 336. By Friday, it was 239. Late Sunday night, the difference had gone down to just 221 -- a total change over 4 days of 504 votes.

Amazingly, this all has occurred even though there hasn’t even yet been a recount. Just local election officials correcting claimed typos in how the numbers were reported. Counties will certify their results today, and their final results will be sent to the secretary of state by Friday. The actual recount won’t even start until November 19.

Correcting these typos was claimed to add 435 votes to Franken and take 69 votes from Coleman. Corrections were posted in other races, but they were only a fraction of those for the Senate. The Senate gains for Franken were 2.5 times the gain for Obama in the presidential race count, 2.9 times the total gain that Democrats got across all Minnesota congressional races, and 5 times the net loss that Democrats suffered for all state House races.

Virtually all of Franken’s new votes came from just three out of 4130 precincts, and almost half the gain (246 votes) occurred in one precinct -- Two Harbors, a small town north of Duluth along Lake Superior -- a heavily Democratic precinct where Obama received 64 percent of the vote. None of the other races had any changes in their vote totals in that precinct.

To put this change in perspective, that single precinct’s corrections accounted for a significantly larger net swing in votes between the parties than occurred for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, or state house races.

The two other precincts (Mountain Iron in St. Louis county and Partridge Township in Pine county) accounted for another 100 votes each. The change in each precinct was half as large as the pickup for Obama from the corrections for the entire state.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune attributed these types of mistakes to “exhausted county officials,” and that indeed might be true, but the sizes of the errors in these three precincts are surprisingly large.

Indeed, the 504 total new votes for Franken from all the precincts is greater than adding together all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, and state house races combined (a sum of 482). It was also true that precincts that gave Obama a larger percentage of the vote were statistically more likely to make a correction that helped Franken.

Read the rest here.

Feast of St. Leo the Great

An article written by Father Z.

Attila the Hun, aka the Scourge of God, was ravaging the lands. In the 440’s the western part of the Empire was disintegrating. Burgundians had invaded Gaul but were driven off by the powerful general Aetius. In 439 Geiseric conquered Carthage in North Africa. In 441 he defeated a Roman force sent against him. The West was suffering from a critical shortage of military manpower and they were beset everywhere (sound familiar?). In 450 the Eastern Emperor Marcian cancelled the annual bribe to the Huns, which the Huns did not find amusing. It happened that the Emperor Valentinian III was trying marry off his sister, Justa Grata Honoria, to an elderly dignitary. She had other ideas. Honoria sent a ring to Attila, King of the Huns. Attila took this as an offer of marriage and demanded half the Western Empire as a dowry. He then invaded Gaul. In 451 near modern Châlons, the general Aetius defeated Attila who, instead of withdrawing back into Germany, moved into defenseless Italy in 452. Aetius was unable to stop him. The Huns sacked Milan, destroyed Aquileia, began to march on Rome. Nothing stood in Attila’s way.

In living memory Rome had been sacked in 410 by Alaric the Visigoth. You can still see coins from fused into the marble floor of the Basilica Aemilia in the Roman Forum. The Sack of Rome had a more profound impact on the Romans throughout the West than 9/11 had on the USA and its allies. In fact, the year 410 in part provided St. Augustine of Hippo with the inspiration to write The City of God, which changed the course of Western civilization. However, in the 450’s, Italy was nearly prostrate and no army could rescue Italy from Attila the Hun. The only figure of any prestige in Italy at the time was the Pope of Rome, Leo. Leo rode north from Rome with a small group of followers and met with Attila before he could reach City and pillage it. They had a private conversation, legend has it. We have no idea what Leo said to the Hunnish King, but immediately thereafter Attila turned his army around, left Italy.

In the Vatican Basilica of St. Peter, in the “Cappella della Colonna” we see the tomb and altar of St. Pope Leo the Great. Over the tomb is a marble relief by Alessandro Algardi (made in 1646-50) depicting the moment of the colloquium of the Saint and the Scourge. Attila is reeling backward from the sight of the menacing and heavily armed Sts. Peter and Paul swooping down from heaven behind Leo’s shoulder. A frowning Peter points authoritatively at Leo while the glowering Paul is aiming his finger in a classic “scram” signal. In 453 (the year Leo gave the sermon that influenced our prayer this week) Attila was heading back through Eastern Europe in preparation for another assault on the Byzantines. He set up camp so that he could get married, drank himself unconscious and promptly did everyone a favor by drowning in his own blood from a nosebleed. Attila’s empire fell apart almost at once and the Hunnish menace dissipated as swiftly as it had arisen. All this in 453 when Leo said: “Beloved, promptly expressing this profession of faith with your whole heart, spew out the impious comments of the heretics, so that your fasting and almsgiving may be polluted by the contagion of no errors. For then both the offering of sacrifice and the holy bestowing of mercy is clean.”

A contemporary heretic's errors help us understand papal jurisdiction in the 5th century!

Father Z's comments in bold...

"Leo the Great’s legacy remains a challenge for the church today"

Fr. Richard McBrien [Notre Dame resident heretic
Essays in Theology
Publication date: November 3, 2008

...

Leo was still only a deacon ["only a deacon" is a bit silly here, when describing what Leo’s role. Leo wielded immense political and theological influence and more than likely had oversight of the material goods of the Church of Rome. For example, Leo executed the mosaics in St. Mary Major: the images were by his design according to his theological perspective and he took take that they be constructed.] when elected to succeed Pope Sixtus III. Indeed, he was not even present at the conclave that chose him, having been away from Rome on a diplomatic mission [even though he was "only a deacon".]. [Old Books: McBrien seems to forget that any Catholic male in good standing, regardless of ecclesiastical office, can be elected pope.]

As pope, Leo became a strong advocate of papal authority, but he himself was not interested in power for power’s sake. [This is a set-up phrase for what comes down the line. McBrien is planting in the reader’s mind what he hopes you the reader will see as a contrast between Leo’s approach and the power motivated approach of modern Popes. For single-issues types like McBrien and other feminists, you can usually reduce their objective to power.]

He used his authority to root out abuses in the church, to resolve disputes, to insure unity in pastoral practices, and to help clarify the church’s teaching about the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ. [He also used his authority to clarify that he had authority and whence that authority came.]

When another bishop, Hilary of Arles, presumed to exercise authority over neighboring French dioceses, Leo ordered Hilary to confine his pastoral activities to his own diocese.

Bishops, Leo insisted, are to be elected by their own clergy and leading laity, and their elections are to be ratified by the rest of the diocesan community, without interference even from Rome. [First, that phrase "without interference from Rome" is what McBrien wants you to remember. But let’s get to some history and Leo’s texts. First, consult Leo’s Letter 40 of 22 August 449 to a group of bishops in the province of Arles, France: "Accordingly we ratify without sanction the good action done by your Fraternities in the diocese of Arles. On the death of Hilary of holy memory you unanimously consecrated a man approved also by us, our brother Ravennius, according to the wishes of the clergy, the nobles and the people." Thereafter, Leo exorts the new bishop Ravennius to be a good bishop. On 5 May 450 Leo would again write in Letter 66 to the bishops around Arles to settle a dispute about the rights of the Bishop of Arles and the Bishop of Vienne. Leo determines the extent and limits of their jurisdiction. He wrote several letters to this effect, including Letter 10 in 445. In other words, though the locals elected the new bishop Ravennius, Leo ratified that election, just as he worked to settle to dispute between the Churches of Arles and Vienne.]

Leo’s electoral principle, “He who is to preside over all must be elected by all,” has been quoted throughout the subsequent history of the church and to this very day, but unfortunately the principle has not been observed for centuries. [McBrien thinks that today bishops should be elected in the local Churches without "interference" from Rome. He is claiming Leo to back that up. That quote is from the above mentioned Letter 10. In ep. 10 Leo also writes: "And although the power to bind and loose was given to Peter before the others, still, in an even more special way, the pasturing of the sheep was entrusted to him. Anyone who thinks that the primacy should be denied to Peter cannot in any way lessen the Apostle’s dignity; inflated with the wind of his own pride, he buries himself in hell." In Letter 10 Leo also describes what was going on in Arles with old Bishop Hilary. Leo describes Hilary: "He seeks to subject you to his authority while not allowing himself to be under the jurisdiction of the blessed Apostle Peter", meaning Leo himself. Also, Hilary had a group of soldiers, armed thugs, who went everywhere with him. They imposed Hilary’s will as to who would be bishop in towns of the province. Hilary also convoked synods and interfered with other bishops. Leo works to lay down the parameters of how the dioceses and province should be governed. He writes: "We have not reserved to ourself consecrations in your provinces – a false claim which Hilary, as is his custom, can perhaps make in order to mislead your Holinesses’ minds. But in our solicitude we justify your right in order that no innovation may be allowed in the future and no further opportunity may exist for the usurper to infringe upon your privileges." Leo was concerned that pushy clerics with bands of thugs not interfere in the election of bishops. So, we learn from this that Leo thinks he can reserve to himself the right to consecrate in Arles and Vienne. The problem here is not that McBrien’s claim that bishops were elected is false: people did elect bishops in those days. The problem is that McBrien tries to use Leo as a prop for his own notion that we should have elections for bishops today, and that Leo did not vindicate rights to himself or "interfere", and modern Popes do. This is all part of McBrien’s flailing polemic against John Paul II and Benedict XVI and the sort of bishops being named more and more frequently.]

Indeed, the writings of Pope Leo the Great and also those of another great pope, Gregory I (590-604), testify that it was entirely normal for the church in the West, that is, in Italy (including Rome), Gaul, northern Europe, and North Africa, to select its pastoral leaders with and through the consent of the clergy and laity, as well as the bishops of neighboring dioceses. [Again… this is not a dispute. However, it is entirely laughable to think that neither Leo nor Gregory did not claim rights in this regard. Think for a moment about how Gregory sent a bishop to England and then advised as to the governance there, leaving freedom of course, but still maintaining authority.]

However, if the bishops and clergy were to prefer a candidate whom the laity disapproved of, that candidacy would not likely survive. That is how decisive the voice of the lay faithful was in the early church. [Again, he cannot claim that Leo did not claims rights for himself in these matters. Leo was very clear about his own rights, as the haeres of Peter over the whole Church.]

Only later did temporal rulers and the pope himself become directly involved in the selection of bishops. But not even the pope had a direct hand in episcopal appointments outside of Italy until the end of the First Christian Millennium. [To which we must respond: The Church found a better way to select bishops. What McBrien is revealing here is the penchant of some progressivists to claim that the early Church, the pristine Church, had the better way of doing things simply because, well, that was a longer time ago than the long time ago when other ways developed. Medieval bad. Late Antiquity better. Apostolic best. This doesn’t allow for the possibility that with the changes of the times we actually learned something as a Church. Our praxis follows on a deepening of our theological reflection.]

By the 10th century, however, the role of the local clergy and laity in the election of their bishops was practically non-existent, having been supplanted by political leaders and powerful families. [Of course McBrien thinks that is bad. He can’t conceive that members of the powerful families of Christendom might have warm and concerned hearts of charity for their people. This is nothing more but the flip side of the "big business is bad" view. Companies must be evil. Nobles must be selfish. He can’t fathom than perhaps big business might have social aims together with making a buck.]

With the reform movement of the 11th century, led by Pope Gregory VII (1073-85), the extra-ecclesiastical hold on church offices began to weaken, but the reforms also produced an unintended consequence, namely, the centralization of authority in the papacy. This development would shape the history of the papacy throughout the Second Christian Millennium and even into our own time. [And this is what McBrien wants to undermine.]

The reform movement did try over the next several decades to restore the ancient practice where the clergy and laity as well as neighboring bishops had some decisive input into the selection of bishops, but the effort eventually failed and popes, kings, and local princes filled the void. [Get that? "the reform movement". He is holding them up as a model. I think he might mean the Protestant Reformation, by the way.]

The laity were limited to consenting “humbly” to whatever choice had been made for them, just as is the case today. [All in all… has that been bad? I don’t think we can claim that it has, in the balance. And there isn’t much wrong with humility.]

It was Pope Pius VII’s concordat with Napoleon in 1801 that had the effect of vesting in the pope alone the power to appoint bishops anywhere in the Roman Catholic church. And that system has remained in place ever since.

The fact that this method of appointing and promoting bishops has absolutely nothing to do with the will of Christ or with the authentic tradition of the church seems to escape many Catholics, and not a few bishops who themselves have benefitted from the break with the ancient practices. [So… the decision of the Church has nothing to do with Christ. The appointing of bishops by the Holy See has nothing to do with the "authentic" tradition of the Church? Really?]

Finally, it was also Leo the Great who made a point of referring to himself as the Vicar of Peter, always careful to add that “the blessed apostle Peter does not cease from presiding over his see.” [This is where McBrien really goes off the rails. Bad history is one thing, but bad theology is another. McBrien has probably latched onto a line in some book, like the Encyclopedia of the Early Church and made it into something Leo would not have recognized. What McBrien does not consider is that Leo, who was a key figure in the development of the theology of the Petrine ministry, uses various terms to describe his own connection with Peter and in light of Peter’s connection with Christ. Leo often describes Peter’s authority as Christ gave it to him. In the sermons Leo only once uses a word related to "vicar" to describe his rapport with Peter. In tr. 3.4 he says, "We we present our exhortations to your holy ears, consider that you are being addressing by the one in place (cuius vice fungimur) of whom we exercise this function." I don’t think anything occurs in the letters. To get at what Leo really thinks, you have to expand the pool of technical terms and look especially at how he describes himself as haeres ("heir") with all its Roman legal connotation, and how he is in the sedes and what that means both from biblical language and Roman juridical force. In the Roman view, still functioning in Leo’s day, the haeres takes the place of the giver. Think of how Octavian Augustus vindicated his rights as Caesar, and not just as the stand in for the dead Julius. If Leo, and other Popes before him, referred to themselves as "vicar of Peter", it was first because of their understanding of the close relationship of the haeres with the testator. Secondly it was because of humility. Whenever Leo refers to his close connection with Peter, he always does so with a reference to his own smallness. In tr. 3.2 we find a good distillation of how Leo shows humility, the close bond he has with Peter, and that Peter is wielding Christ’s power: "Therefore, dearly beloved, though we be found weak and slothful in carrying out the duties of our office … still we have the constant propitiation of the omnipotent and perpetual Priest. ... We rightly and piously rejoice in his arrangement because, although he has delegated the care of his sheep to many shepherds, he himself has not relinquished custody of his beloved flock. From his eternal protection derives the reinforcement of apostolic help that we have received. This never stops working either, ... Just as what Peter believed in Christ remains, there likewise remains what Christ instituted in Peter." We must also remember that in Letter 93 writing to the Synod at Nicea in 451 – moved later to Chalcedon, Leo wrote that, "I am present in my representatives". He understood that Christ worked in Peter and he himself had Peter’s role. This does not say he thought explicitly he was "Vicar of Christ", but it is less than a very daring step away. By the way… Leo thought he could "interfere" to approve councils and synods.]

The popes of the 5th and 6th centuries regarded themselves as “holding the place” of Peter, and even into the 11th and 12th centuries the title “Vicar of Peter” remained in use to designate the Bishop of Rome, alongside “Vicar of Peter and Paul” and “Vicar of the Apostolic See.”

“Vicar of Christ” also has a long history, but not as a papal title. It was applied to every priest at least from the 3rd century and to all bishops in the Middle Ages. Vatican II also referred to bishops as “the vicars and ambassadors of Christ” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n. 27).

Leo the Great’s legacy remains a challenge for the church today. [It is apparently a challenge for McBrien too.]

[In reading McBrien I am reminded of one of the central plot lines of Windswept House, by the oddball Malachi Martin. Windswept House contains some irresponsible fictions, but it was spot on when it describes the sort of creeping incrementalism and rot behind the push to see the Pope not so much as Vicar of Christ but only as Vicar of Peter. In that book, there is a (diabolically inspired) conspiracy of subverted (masonic) cardinals et al. to get the Pope to sign a document reducing his own authority as one who is more primus inter pares along the lines of a Vicar of Peter rather than a Vicar of Christ.

I am not saying that these are McBrien’s starting points. I refer to this book only because it can give you a sense of the thinking behind this effort to shift people’s view from the Pope as Vicar of Christ, with the authority that implies, to Vicar of Peter with the less extensive authority that implies.

McBrien is working from a specific ecclesiological view, one with a very weak Petrine ministry, one with a strong element of "church from below", very horizontal, not vertical. Christ selected the Apostles and Peter did not. Thus, Peter’s Successor cannot selected the Apostles’ Successors. The real voice of Christ is in the people, thus the people should select the successors of the Apostle’s, not the Bishop of Rome, who is only Vicar of Peter.

Moreover, if McBrien likes Leo’s ecclesial "democracy", at least as it exists in McBrien’s theological fantasy world, then would he also advocate that the Pope should rule Italy and Rome as a secular ruler?]

Pius XII, the Miracle of the sun, & The Assumption of Mary

Does a pope use 'papal infallibly' at his whim? Indeed, not! Why Pius XII was confirmed in declaring the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary.

Pius XII Saw "Miracle of the Sun"
Handwritten Note Reveals Pope's Experience

By Antonio Gaspari

ROME, NOV. 4, 2008 (Zenit.org).- According to his own testimony, the Pope who declared the dogma of the Assumption saw the "miracle of the sun" four times.

This information is confirmed by a handwritten, unpublished note from Pope Pius XII, which is part of the "Pius XII: The Man and the Pontificate" display. The display opened in the Vatican to the public today and will run through Jan. 6.

A commissioner of the display and a Vatican reporter for the Italian daily Il Giornale, Andrea Tornielli, explained to ZENIT that the note was found in the Pacelli family archives. It describes the "miracle of the sun," an episode that until today had only been affirmed by the indirect testimony of Cardinal Federico Tedeschini (1873-1959), who recounted in a homily that the Holy Father had seen the miracle.

Pius XII wrote, "I have seen the 'miracle of the sun,' this is the pure truth."

The miracle of the sun is most known as the episode that occurred in Fatima, Portugal, on Oct. 13, 1917. According to the Fatima visionaries, Mary had said there would be a miracle that day so that people would come to believe. Thousands had gathered at the site of the visions, and the sun "danced," reportedly drying instantaneously the rain-soaked land and spectators.

Confirming the dogma

Pius XII's note says that he saw the miracle in the year he was to proclaim the dogma of the Assumption, 1950, while he walked in the Vatican Gardens.

He said he saw the phenomenon various times, considering it a confirmation of his plan to declare the dogma.

The papal note says that at 4 p.m. on Oct. 30, 1950, during his "habitual walk in the Vatican Gardens, reading and studying," having arrived to the statue of Our Lady of Lourdes, "toward the top of the hill […] I was awestruck by a phenomenon that before now I had never seen."

"The sun, which was still quite high, looked like a pale, opaque sphere, entirely surrounded by a luminous circle," he recounted. And one could look at the sun, "without the slightest bother. There was a very light little cloud in front of it."

The Holy Father's note goes on to describe "the opaque sphere" that "moved outward slightly, either spinning, or moving from left to right and vice versa. But within the sphere, you could see marked movements with total clarity and without interruption."

Pius XII said he saw the same phenomenon "the 31st of October and Nov. 1, the day of the definition of the dogma of the Assumption, and then again Nov. 8, and after that, no more."

The Pope acknowledged that on other days at about the same hour, he tried to see if the phenomenon would be repeated, "but in vain -- I couldn't fix my gaze [on the sun] for even an instant; my eyes would be dazzled."

Pius XII spoke about the incident with a few cardinals and close collaborators, such that Sister Pascalina Lehnert, the nun in charge of the papal apartments, declared that "Pius XII was very convinced of the reality of the extraordinary phenomenon, which he had seen on four occasions."

Son of Our Lady

Tornielli told ZENIT that there was always a close link between the life of Eugenio Pacelli and the mystery of the Virgin Mary.

"Since childhood," he said, "Eugenio Pacelli was devoted [to Our Lady] and was registered in the Congregation of the Assumption, which had a chapel close to the Church of Jesus. A devotion that seemed prophetic, since he would be precisely the one to declare the dogma of the Assumption in 1950."

The future Pope celebrated his first Mass on April 3, 1899, at the altar of the icon of Mary "Salus Populi Romani" in the Basilica of St. Mary Major. "And then," Tornielli continued, "Eugenio Pacelli received episcopal ordination from Pope Benedict XV in the Sistine Chapel on May 13, 1917, the day of the first apparition of the Virgin of Fatima."

As Pope, in 1940, he approved the Fatima apparitions, and in 1942, consecrated the entire world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

As well, Pius XII often spoke with Sister Lucia, the visionary of Fatima, and he asked her to transcribe the messages she received from the Virgin. He thus became the first Pope to know the "third secret of Fatima," which Pope John Paul II would later make public.

For my confirmand on the eve of his Confirmation Retreat...

The 'director of youth catechesis' at St. Peter's asked each 'sponsor' to write a letter to their 'candidate'. These terms apparently refer to what was formerly known as a spiritual advisor and a confirmand. Here's my letter to Ben...

Dear Ben,

I hope this note finds you well. I believe you are on your retreat this weekend, and I hope that you find the talks, activities, and social time fruitful for your faith. So many of these sorts of events are organized by adults who are intimidated by teenagers, and simply want to 'accommodate' the teenage 'youth culture'. This is a grave mistake. So, my hope and prayer is that the weekend is substantive, and that Truth is spoken boldly to you and to a generation of young people swimming in a 'culture of death' as Pope John Paul the Great and our current pontiff, Benedict XVI, have called it.

Allow me to launch right into my 'Confirmation Retreat' message for you…

Think about it, the current culture of iPods, internet, TV, DVD's, music, news, education, and politics are all geared toward one target audience: the adolescent teenage male. I would argue that the teenage male is the lowest form of human life on planet earth! Look at many of the young people around you this weekend. What do you see? A genuine desire for God, or a desire to fulfill one's immature feelings? Bold leaders proclaiming the Kingdom of God, or a bunch of petty followers who worry about wearing the right clothes and listening to the right music? What I am saying is that our superficial media culture is geared toward immaturity, materialism, banality, and sexuality: a culture of death. This culture of death is quite simply and literally a highway to Hell for young people. In a world of followers, we need leaders; the Church needs leaders; God needs leaders.

At the Fall, the human race was shattered into a thousand pieces, and scattered over all Creation. Our relationships, lives, bodies, souls, and even our planet are fundamentally broken. The 'Barak Obamas' (or any politician, really) of the world preach a lot of hype about 'change' and 'bringing the world together' and 'hope'. These hopes are a false Gospel at best, and the work of the Evil One at worst. You see, the Christian understands that the fallen world is fundamentally "a valley of tears", and that there is no such thing as 'heaven on earth' (only at mass!) or a utopia society without any suffering. When humans become prideful and start believing that they can create a 'heaven on earth', people are often exterminated, disregarded, annihilated, and blotted off the face of the earth. Such ideas are the Gospel of moral and spiritual relativism, of 'your truth is your truth, and my truth is my truth'. Such ideas exemplify a world that believes in freedom for freedom's sake; freedom without limits. Yet as we have seen in human history, when freedom is without limits, it turns into tyranny.

Back to the Garden... this freedom without limits takes us back to the sin of the Garden of Eden; the pride of humanity to make decisions about reality without God.

How do we change this? How do we participate in real change? What do you, Ben Pfenning, have to do with all of this???! Where ought you to turn? The answer is simple: The Church of Jesus Christ. Right after the Fall, God began working toward building His Church. He made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, King David, and others. He spoke to His Chosen People, the Jews, through His prophets Elijah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Hosea, and Daniel. Through it all, God was working to gather broken humanity, until His Son, Jesus Christ, became Incarnate, and Redeemed the world of its sin and death. This is the Church: the Gathering of the People of God.

To be a member of this real change and this real revolution only one thing is required: total submission to the Truth. Remember my morning prayer talks at Trinity earlier this year? Remember how the Bible is a divisive book? The Bible divides people into two classes; NOT those who are right and those who are wrong, but rather 1) those who seek the Truth and 2) those who do not seek the Truth.
The world around us is full of nice people. Most people don't want to bother anyone or be rude to anyone or get in anyone's way. In fact, in order to function as a member of our society, we HAVE to be nice people! So, being nice is not really a virtue, it's a requirement to live in a civilization such as ours; you'd have to be a fool to be otherwise! But as a Christian, what is required of us is NOT niceness, but HOLINESS! How many people can you think of today who are holy? Friends, teachers, priests, politicians, entertainers? Exactly. Not many. But this is one of the sacred marks of the Church: One, HOLY, Catholic, and Apostolic. Holy does not mean that we are pious snobs who simply pray all day. Holy means to be 'set apart' from the world; in the world but not of the world. We work, live, speak, and act according to the will of God, not of the ways and customs of the world. We speak Truth to a world that shies and hides from it.

St. Paul said in his first letter to the Corinthians: "If I preach the Gospel, this is no reason for me to boast, for an obligation has been imposed on me, and woe to me if I do not preach it!"
To hide from the Truth and to fail to proclaim it is silly. This is called 'pusillanimity' or weak-mindedness. This is the plague of the modern age. We are afraid of being opinionated; we are afraid of offending anyone by Truth, even when we know it is the will of God. This is pusillanimity. We see it in our schools, teachers, headmasters, politicians, parents, teenagers, college students, professors, priests, deacons, religious, bishops, and Confirmation catechesis programs!!! (Fortunately, we have not seen it in our popes recently!) Pusillanimity is everywhere, and it has been there from the very beginnings of the Church. Recall Abraham doubting in God, and Sarah laughing when it was prophesied that she would bear a son in old age; remember how King David became such a great sinner, even after his defeat of Goliath.
The greatest story, in my opinion, of pusillanimity in the Bible is about Simon Peter. Here it is, from the Gospel of Luke, chapter 5:

1 And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret, 2 And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing their nets. 3 And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon's, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship. 4 Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, "Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught." 5 And Simon answering said unto him, "Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net." 6 And when they had this done, they enclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake. 7 And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. 8 When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord."

When Simon Peter realized who Jesus really was through the miracle, that indeed He was the Messiah, what was his response? "Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord!" How pathetic! But how honest. Simon Peter realized that this Jesus character was dangerous; dangerous to his own personal autonomy. Can you imagine, Simon Peter must have thought to himself,
"This Jesus, if I get mixed up with Him, I'll have to leave my fishing business. I'll have to sacrifice the comfort of my home. I'll have to speak the Truth to a world that doesn't want to hear it. I will uphold very unpopular ideas about what is right and what is wrong. I may even have to travel to strange lands (like Rome!) that are dangerous and far from home. And, oh my, I might even need to die for the faith and hope I have in Jesus Christ. This is simply too much to ask. I must retreat."
And then he falls to his knees before the God of the Universe and says, "Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord!" This is pusillanimity at the most profound level. It is amazing that Simon Peter changed his ways at all! But wait, it doesn't end here, for Simon Peter denied Christ 3 times, and ran away at His crucifixion. What a coward. He was the Prince of the Apostles, the one who proclaimed Jesus to be the Messiah when everyone doubted Him! What happened? Simon Peter was weak-minded. Yet Christ forgave him, and Simon ceased to be Simon, but became Peter.

Simon really became Peter, "the Rock", at the most important event in Salvation History other than the death and Resurrection of Christ: PENTECOST. The Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles and fundamentally changed them, including Peter. The Holy Ghost strengthened them, just as Jesus had promised and the Holy Ghost remains with us even unto this very day. In fact, that is what Confirmation is all about: receiving the power of the Holy Ghost, as handed on by the Apostles and their successors from age to age. The graces you received at Baptism will now be completed at Confirmation; you were initiated into God's people at Baptism, Original Sin was wiped away and you were won again by Christ the change for eternal life; at Confirmation you will be strengthened like Peter and the Apostles by the Holy Spirit, and you will become an 'adult' in the faith. You will be given the great responsibility to "preach the Gospel" as St. Paul says… and woe to you if you get Confirmed and do not preach it with your life and words. Beware: Confirmation is all about the rite and the sacrament. When the bishop anoints you with the holy chrism oil and calls down the Holy Spirit, you have been touched in a permanent manner! You will fundamentally be marked by the God of the universe! You will become a full-fledged temple of the Holy Spirit.

When we look upon human history, we see a lot of weak-mindedness and human attempts at creating a perfect 'utopia'. As a young Christian on the verge of becoming an 'adult in the faith', we must identify the struggles of our age before us. These are the 4 most common areas where young men like yourself, trying to be decent Christians, most commonly crumble under pusillanimity:

1) Unfaithfulness to orthodox Catholic teaching
a. It is often 'cool' or 'freeing' to not listen to the Church's teaching on matters of faith and morals.
b. People often want to follow their own Gospel, one that fits their personal agenda.
2) Unchastity
a. Young men are swimming in a culture of death, where around every corner lust is seeking to allure them away from what is most important. We must be on guard at all times. We must guard our eyes and our thoughts from unchastity at all times. We must be willing to do violence to ourselves if necessary to honor this commandment of Christ. Violence meaning, not physically hurting ourselves, but radically avoiding the sin. If we find that we fall into lust on the computer, then don't use the computer. If we find that we fall into lust when we watch movies, then don't watch movies. That's what it means to follow Christ in a radical way. Obviously, we must avoid any sexual behavior outside of its proper ordering in marriage, lest we be consumed by such sin.
3) Materialism
a. We become selfish and obsessed with material things and activities. We are consumed by 'stuff'. The things and activities of our life are more important than the people we should love. It is said that the most successful lie that the Devil has gotten man to believe is the lie that the Devil does not exist. Such an idea can only flourish in an age of 'business'. "I'm too busy to pray." "I'm too busy to go to mass." "I'm too busy to love."
4) Failure to honor our authorities, especially God and our parents
a. We must always love and show deference to those in authority over us, especially God and our parents. To not love God or our parents is to fail in just about every other area of our lives. "You shall love the Lord your God with all your mind, soul, and heart." "Honor thy father and mother." (Exodus)

Yet in the face of such sins as these, we also see amazing examples of Christians suffering in this fundamentally broken world and working to bring God's love into the world. These men and women are the saints, fearless proclaimers of the Truth of Christ and His Church. How do they do it? Through a total submission to God, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, and through daily examination of their conscience, and through the reception of Christ's most precious Body and Blood. The saints are the real heroes of history, for they help heaven and earth collide just a little more with their extraordinary love in ordinary situations. Have you thought about who your patron saint will be? Which saint will you call upon to prepare you for Confirmation, and to mystically stand at your side when the bishop calls down the Holy Ghost?

So, Ben, the question is this: Do you want to become a co-worker of the Truth? Do you want to be a saint? This is only a yes or no question, to say 'maybe' is to be weak-minded or pusillanimous. You are a good, young man, Ben! The Holy Spirit will do great things with and in you if you open yourself up to the immense powers of God in every moment of your life. I promise you, if you throw in with the Holy Ghost, so to speak, and you openly receive the graces, powers, and gifts of the Holy Spirit at Confirmation, you will find true happiness, truth fulfillment, and true Love. All you need to do, is to be open to the gift, and receive the Holy Spirit in a state of grace and prayer.

Ben, may God bless you many times over! I will continue to pray for you in all your endeavors. I will be praying fervently for a good retreat for you and your comrades! Remember, you are loved, and you are a son of the God of the Universe. Nothing on earth can possibly be more important than that!

Have a great weekend.

Blessings from your friend, teacher, and 'sponsor',
Michael
Nov. 1st, 2008, on the Feast of All Saints