Report: Apostolic Visitation of US seminaries (UPDATED)

[NB. The link to the actual report is now fixed.]

In response to the sexual abuse scandals that hit the Church square-on in 2002, the Vatican initiated in the fall of 2005 an "Apostolic Visitation" of all American seminaries and schools of theology that teach seminarians.

The review boards interviewed seminarians and recently ordained priests in order to evaluate contemporary priestly formation in the U.S. Interviewers asked questions about academic work, moral formation, spiritual life, faculty fidelity to the magisterium, etc. I was interviewed for this visitation just six months into my priesthood.

The final report has finally been released. Overall, diocesan seminaries are given very high marks for substantial improvements, especially in the tightening up the loosey-goosey "it's-all-about-me" formation programs, for instilling a sense of priestly identity in the seminarians, and for appointing strong, faithful priests to serve as rectors.

I am embarrassed but not surprised that seminaries and schools of theology operated and staffed by religous orders are consistently thumped for not making the cut. The critical language of the report is very restrained in pointing out problems. However, that these schools were singled out at all is very, very telling. Like most official documents of the Church, if there's even a hint of negative critical language, it is carrying a very painful slap. . .even if the hand is covered in the finest silk.

Schools run by religious are smacked for hiring and retaining dissenting professors (two areas of dissent were noted: blurring the distinctions btw lay/ordained ministries and advocating for women's ordination); for allowing lay and non-Catholic members of the faculty to vote on decisions about ordination; for laxity in teaching orthodox moral theology; among others.

The report is interesting too for its proposed solutions to remaining problems. Listing the proposed reforms together and taking them as a program, you get the diocesan equivalent of a religious order's novitiate! Excellent.

Time will tell. . .the inevitable biological solution. . .if problems in religious order schools can be solved fraternally and to everyone's benefit, or if it's going to take the delivery of a whole bunch of pink slips.

[UPDATE] I want to draw your attention to Clayton Emmer's wonderful blog, The Weight of Glory. Clayton blogs extensively on issues related to Catholic seminary formation. Check it out!

Stopping the Marian madness (Updates)

Question. . .

I just read on the internet that the Holy Father is trying to curb claims about apparitions of the Blessed Mother. What do you think about this?

Answer. . .

Before I can say anything concrete about this story, I will need to read to the actual papal document from the Vatican's own website. Never, never, NEVER trust the media (not even FOXNews) to get a story about Christianity right, especially if the news item is about the Catholic faith. They are invincibly stupid when it comes to telling the simple truth about what we believe as Catholics. Check, check, and triple check again anything they say about the Church.

UPDATE: John Allen has a few more details on this story. Unfortunately, the link takes you the site of the NCR, so have holy water and the Padre Pio Shorter Prayer of Exorcism ready in order to clean your computer of dissenting mal-ware and the infamously destructive McBrien-Chittister Trogan Horse virus. (h/t: Allan).

Now, generally speaking, Marian apparitions are almost always false. . .they are reported by either perfectly wonderful Catholics who truly believe the Blessed Mother is speaking to them, or crackpots with some high priced rosaries to sell, or seriously mentally disturbed individuals in need of pastoral help.

Does the Virgin appear to people and give them messages? It is entirely within the realm of possibility. However, belief in the authenticity of the alleged apparitions and veracity of the alleged messages in no way impinges on the salvation of Catholics. In other words, you can be a perfectly good Catholic, fully redeemed, true, good, and beautiful and never once pay the least bit of attention to any Marian apparition. You can, in fact, actively disbelieve that they occur without eternal consequence.

Why? before any apparition can be considered authentic, the Church--the Body of Christ on earth--must investigate the claims of those allegedly receiving the messages and verify the orthodoxy of the messages. If a message is found to be wanting in terms of its orthodoxy, then we know the message is not from Mary and cannot be held as true. If the message is deemed orthodox, that is, fully in line with the tradition of the Church's teaching on divine revelation, then all Mary is doing is repeating what we already know to be true. If Mary is simply repeating what we already know to be true, then there is no point in claiming that we must all listen to the message. We already have the message.

You will object here and say, "But Father, shouldn't people listen to Mary?" Yes, they should. And she has plenty to say to us in scripture. But not listening to her as an apparition is not going to send you to Hell. Our salvation is determined by one thing and one thing only: the degree to which we freely choose to cooperate in the "once for all" salvific death/gift of Christ on the Cross and his glorious resurrection from the tomb. Nothing an apparition of Mary can say or do can change that.

Well, what about people who find comfort and strength from these apparitions? More power to 'em! Go for it! If an apparition brings you closer to God through Christ and his Church, then I say: buy those place tickets and pack your bags for a trip to see Mary. But you are no more "saved" for going and no less "saved" for staying home. If the Church has declared that a particular apparition is false or the messages delivered are errorenous. then you are obligated to avoid those apparitions. Mary, the woman who said YES to becoming the Mother of God, is the model of ecclesial obedience. She would never tell anyone to disobey those given authority by her Son.

What I have no tolerance for is the false claim that Catholics are required to believe in this or that apparition because the Church has approved the apparition. I was told once that belief in the Fatima message is required for salvation. The only thing the Church says about any Marian apparition is whether or not there is sufficient objective proof that the apparitions are supernatural in origin and whether or not the messages conform to infallible Church teaching. Church approval simply means that it appears as though the apparitions themselves are legitimate and that the messages delivered are free form error. Apparitions that deliver heretical message are ipso facto false. Nothing more can be assumed about this imprimatur.

Scripture, tradition, and right reason clearly teach that there can be no new revelation to the Church. None. If Mary appears and proclaims her Son to be the Messiah and asks all present to pray the rosary, fast, do charitable works. Great. But we already know to do all of that. If she appears and proclaims herself to be the Messiah and asks those present to start consecrating bread and wine to become her body and blood for our salvation, it's Satan, lying to them. There was a Marian cult in the U.S. a few years back that actually celebrated "Marian Masses" where the priest "changed" bread and wine in the body and blood of Mary in imitation of the real Mass. He and his cultists would take a "Marian communion" after the regular, sacramental communion. Some of my own Dominican brothers were involved in preaching the gospel to these people and bringing them back into the Church.

Mary herself was no doubt upset at this blasphemy againstg he Son.

No new revelation. Not from a priest. Not from a bishop. Not from a pope. Not from a angel. Not from the Mother of God herself.

Land of Lost Books

Couple of emails asking about whether or not books purchased from Ye 'Ole Wish List have arrived yet. . .

As far as I can tell, I've received most of the books you guys sent me back the first week of November. Thank You notes have been sent for all those books that included a shipping invoice with a return address on it.

I asked one of my former U.D. students whether or not he had received a note I sent him back in mid-December. No, he hasn't. So, if you haven't received a note, knowing posteitaliane, it will arrive in time for your summer vacation. I'm still waiting on three shipments of HBP meds sent to me from Houston between Sept 1st and Dec 10th. I've been spending my out-of-pocket gelato and Nutella money on heart medicine! Hmmmm. . .there's some irony there. . .

The books that I know were purchased but have not yet arrived are:

Wrestling With the Divine, C. Knight

Web of Belief, W.V.O. Quine

Historicity of Nature, W. Pannenburg

Science and the Spiritual Quest, Phillip Clayton

And one sent by my German Angel. . .I can't read my own handwriting from my list to decipher the title.

So, if you sent me a book and haven't received a thank you note yet, it's either b/c you sent one of the books above and I haven't received it, or the shipping invoice had no return address, or posteitaliane has struck again and the book is on a train headed to the Netherlands where it and tons of other holiday mail/gifts will be dumped into a landfill.

Don't they understand that I am only obligated to be patient during Advent? And then ONLY b/c I am waiting on the Lord!?

Coming attractions. . .

. . .this week at HancAquam:

A Dominican disputation: Is God dead?

An outline for my Ph.L. thesis at suppl(e)mental.

A quick look at the ethics of taking "brain booster drugs" at also at suppl(e)mental.

And an announcement about my book proposal to Liguori Press!

Keep checking. . .

Oh, and I got a very sad email from my WISH LIST elf. . .he's been very lonely lately. . .

Theosis: that we might become God

It is well past Christmas, but there's always a good reason to spice up the season with a wonderful essay on my favorite theological topic: theosis!

From Carl E. Olson at Ignatius Insight:

+

Theosis: The Reason for the Season
December 30, 2008

What, really, is the point of Christmas? Why did God become man?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in a section titled, "Why did the Word become flesh?" (pars 456-460) provides several complimentary answers: to save us, to show us God's love, and to be a model of holiness. And then, in what I think must be, for many readers, the most surprising and puzzling paragraph in the entire Catechism, there is this:

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." (par 460)

So that "we might become God"? Surely, a few might think, this is some sort of pantheistic slip of the theological pen, or perhaps a case of good-intentioned but poorly expressed hyperbole. But, of course, it is not. First, whatever problems there might have been in translating the Catechism into English, they had nothing to do with this paragraph. Secondly, the first sentence is from 2 Peter 1:4, and the three subsequent quotes are from, respectively, St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, and (gasp!) St. Thomas Aquinas. Finally, there is also the fact that this language of divine sonship—or theosis, also known as deification—is found through the entire Catechism. A couple more representative examples. . .[here is the rest of the article].

Never, Rarely, Always: Dominican Disputation (UPDATED)

In what is probably a doomed effort to tame my intemperate tongue and fiery typing-fingers, I have set myself on a course of re-learning and practicing the ancient tradition of Dominican disputation.

So, more for my benefit than your enjoyment, I present the Dominican method of disputation (in breve). . .

Early Dominican disputation was done in public, usually in universities for the benefit of students learning the crafts of philosophy and theology. The Master (professor) would give a lecture on some topic and then take questions from the students and other Masters. Once asked, the question would be answered first with a list of objections to the Master's real answer. So, if the Master's real answer was "Yes," he would begin by stating what all the "No" answers would seem to be. These are presented in the Summa theologiae as the "videtur" or "it would seem that."

After this, the Master would provide a sed contra, or a "to the contrary," a general answer to the objections that served to lay the foundation for his own answer to the original question. The sed contra was usually a quotation from scripture, a well-respected theologian/philosopher, or saint that directly or indirectly touched on the question.

Once the sed contra is announced, the Master would answer with a respondeo, the "I respond that." Here he pulls on the foundational principles taught to his students, employing basic logic, metaphsyics, common sense, and additional authorative sources.

In the respondeo, the Master would use a peculiarly scholastic technique in arguing his point. Summarized the technique is: "Never deny, rarely affirm, always distinguish." Thus, the scholastics' reputation for "multiplying distinctions."

After the respondeo, the Master would then apply his answer to each objection (the videtur) in a reply and show why each was incorrect given the sed contra and the logic of the respondeo.

Break down of the "Never deny, rarely affirm, always distinguish"

Never deny: this prinicple presupposes charity in requiring the responder to take seriously the objections made to any answer he might give; that is, by never outright denying a conclusion, the Master presumes the good will of the objector and averts any attacks on the person. By disallowing the outright denial of an opponent's premise or conclusion, the 'never deny' pushes us in charity to recognize that even an assertion erroneous on the whole may contain some partial truth. The next two steps in the method assure us of ferreting out whatever truth might be found error. (NB. This technique also tends to kill in its cradle the all-too-often virulent disease we call "flaming").

Rarely affirm: this prinicple frees the Master from the traps in the objections that might inexorably lead him to conclude that the objection is correct. It also serves to push the argument beyond merely polite agreement and force the debaters to explore areas of disagreement that could lead to a better answer.

Always distinguish: this prinicple allows the Master to accomplish the first two principles while still giving him plenty of room to disagree with the objections. By requiring the Master to carefully parse his words, this step in the argument recognizes the limits of language and logic when discussing any truth and acknowledges that there is some hope of finding better and better definitions.

So, in practice, you will hear those who use this method say things like, "If by X, you mean Y, then X" or "I would distinguish between X and Y" or "You are right to say X, but X does not necessarily entail Y" and so on. The goal is to parse proper distinctions with charity until there is some clarity with regard to the use of terms and their place in the argument.

I should add here another good principle of logic: "Where there is no difference, there can be no distinction;" that is, any distinction between X and Y must be based on a real difference between X and Y. For example, all teachers have heard some version of the following: "But I didn't plagiarize my paper, I just borrowed my roommate's paper and put my name on it."

No difference, no distinction.

Unlearning what we never learned in the first place

While digging around the internet for a review of a book I'm using in my thesis, I found over at First Things, this wonderfully "on-target" post by the recently deceased Fr. Richard John Neuhaus:

In March 1993, we published “Mainline Churches: The Real Reason for Decline” by Dean Hoge and his colleagues, who had done a careful study of the Presbyterian Church (USA). When all the other variables are taken into account, they argued, the real reason is a lack of belief. R. Scott Appleby, professor of history at Notre Dame, applies that analysis to contemporary Catholicism. “The challenge of Catholic education and formation in our media-driven, cyberspace age is no less than this: older Catholics must be restored to and younger Catholics introduced to a sense of Catholicism as a comprehensive way of life-as a comprehending wisdom and set of practices that bring integrity and holiness to individuals and to the families and extended communities to which they belong and which they serve.” The years after Vatican II, he writes, saw the rise of the first “post-ethnic generation” of American Catholics, people for whom Catholicism was no longer an intact culture (or subculture) but one choice among others in the religious marketplace. In addition, Catholicism today is marked by many voices-right and left, liberal and conservative-claiming to define what is authentically Catholic. “In the realm of ideas and Catholic self-understanding, change came most powerfully with the introduction of genuine pluralism into American Catholic theology once Thomism was supplemented, and in many arenas supplanted, by narrative, feminist, liberationist, and other inductive theologies grounded in experience.” The result is “a rich farrago of theological options, many of them rich and enlivening but experienced by Catholics piecemeal and without benefit of an overarching view of ‘the Catholic thing.’” In his address to the Catholic Academy for Communication Arts Professionals, Appleby concludes with this: “Catholic communicators must be leaders among those who package the faith, not as a series of discrete bits and bytes but as organic, interdependent sets of beliefs, insights, and practices by which one may lead a morally coherent and spiritually fruitful life.” Mr. Appleby’s cultural critique is, I believe, pretty much on target. He is also right in understanding our current circumstance in terms of a crisis of belief. But is the problem that a manualist Thomism has been displaced by narrative, feminist, liberationist, and other inductive theologies? In religious studies courses, perhaps, as well as in many departments of theology misleadingly called Catholic. Without discounting the influence of the systematic academic unlearning of Catholic teaching that students had never learned in the first place, most Catholics have never heard of the liberationist and other theological fashions Appleby cites. What they have heard and believed and internalized is that there is no such thing as authoritative Catholic teaching; that Catholicism is a matter of “discrete bits and bytes” to be accessed according to felt needs. We do not need communicators who will “package the faith” more attractively. We need teachers and exemplars-parents, priests, bishops, religious, academics-who invite a new generation to the high adventure of living the faith. That adventure is compellingly depicted in Scripture and living tradition, including Vatican II and its authoritative interpretation by the Magisterium, and not least by John Paul II. Mr. Appleby is right in saying that Catholicism is a comprehensive and coherent culture shaped by a story entailing truth claims that require a response of faith. What is missing from his account is any reference to where and how that story is authoritatively told. I am not sure that the faith can or should be “packaged,” but I am sure that no skills of the communication arts will make up for uncertainty about the faith to be communicated

Religious Priests and Diocesan Priests

My post below on questions for those discerning a religious vocation has prompted more questions about the differences between "religious priests" (RP) and diocesan or secular priests (DP).

In the Catholic Church there are two kinds of priests: religious and diocesan. The primary canonical difference between the two is based on who serves as an immediate ecclesial superior. For RP's the immediate ecclesial superior is the local prior, abbot, or major superior; that is, a member of that priest's order/monastery who exercises canonical authority in virtue of holding an office within the order/monastery. My immediate ecclesial superior is the prior of this convent. For DP's, the immediate ecclesial superior is always the bishop of the priest's diocese.

Practically, this means that a friar's/monk's/nun's ministry and life in the community is directed by a fellow friar/monk/nun who is elected to authority by the community. For DP's, their ministry and life in the diocese is subject to the bishop. Now, all religious orders within a diocese are subject to the bishop in so far as that bishop must approve any religious ministry in his diocese. Bishops have no authority over the internal workings of a community. So, if a priory or monastery elects as prior/abbot someone the bishop doesn't like, he is not empowered to dispose of that election. He can revoke the faculties of the priests in the house, or fire any offending religious who works for the diocese. But he cannot step into the internal affairs of religious.

There are other prominent differences between RP's and DP's. One big difference is the taking of religious vows. RP's are made religious priests by making solemn vows regarding poverty, chastity, and obedience. DP's do not make religious vows. At ordination, all priests promise chastity and obedience to an "ordinary" superior. For religious priests at ordination, we make these promises to both our immediate superior and the bishop. DP's do not take a vow of poverty b/c they are considered "self-employed" by the IRS. RP's usually have access to community cars, funds, medical care, room and board, and other essentials for daily living. DP's provide most of these for themselves as "employees" of the diocese. In practical terms, the vow of poverty is about not owning anything in one's own name. RP's cannot own a car. DP can. Same goes for houses, boats, etc.

Another big difference is spirituality. RP's often belong to order's with long traditions in certain kinds of spirituality. Think: Ignatian Exercises for the Jebbies. Or the spirituality of "prayer and work'" for the Benedictines. Dominicans consider our daily lives lived according to the constitutions to be our spirituality. There is a spirituality for DP's. The big difference is that DP's rarely live in community. There prinicple spirituality revolves around their ministries in direct service to their parish.

This brings up several other differences rooted in ministry:

DP's work within the limits of their dioceses (there are exception for academics and others)
RP's can work anywhere in the world where their order has a house.

DP's usually work in parishes or ministries that directly serve the laity (exceptions: ditto)
RP's often work in universities, hospitals, secular jobs, etc. where the focus is not necessarily on serving the parochial laity directly (exceptions: many RP's serve parishes)

DP's have fewer opportunities to "switch ministries" b/c their immediate superior (the bishop) has responsibility for ministries only within his diocese and parishes need priests
RP's have much more flexibility in this regard b/c their assignments are made by superiors who have responsibilities beyond a diocesan border (e.g. yours truly assigned to Rome rather than a university in my province)

DP's have fewer opporunities for advanced study b/c of the pressing needs of their dioceses
RP's are usually encouraged to pursue advanced study if there is need

DP's have a more flexible daily schedule and tend to be more available for one-on-one interaction b/c they do not have community responsibilities (cooking for six or more brothers, taking care of community cars, accounts, etc.)
RP's are much more restricted by community obligations in their daily schedule and availability (communal prayer, meals, recreation time, etc.)

One interesting development since Vatican Two is the blurring of some of these lines between RP's and DP's. It is not at all uncommon now to find DP's living in small communities in urban areas where parishes are clustered together. In fact, many younger DP's are insisting on living in community as a way of maintaining accountability and fostering fraternity. At the same time, many religious, in the name of ministerial necessity, have moved out of community life and set up house in apartments or rectories to live alone. For the most part, this development was a reaction to the perceived restrictions of the community rule that some felt stifled their ministries. This trend among male religious is waning fast and in some cases actually forbidden.

One simplistic way of understanding the essential difference between RP's and DP's is to think of RP's as a bunch of guys living in a fraternity house (shudder) and DP's as guys who live by themselves as single men. This image (though deeply flawed) at least points up the day-to-day differences that emerge from the differences in living by yourself and living with your family.

Jews are pigs and apes

What you won't hear on CNN or read in the NYT. . .

Jeffery Goldberg of the Atlantic interviewed Hamas leader, Nizar Rayyan:

The question I wrestle with constantly is whether Hamas is truly, theologically implacable. That is to say, whether the organization can remain true to its understanding of Islamic law and God's word and yet enter into a long-term non-aggression treaty with Israel. I tend to think not, though I've noticed over the years a certain plasticity of belief among some Hamas ideologues. Also, this is the Middle East, so anything is possible.

There was no flexibility with Rayyan. This is what he said when I asked him if he could envision a 50-year hudna (or cease-fire) with Israel: "The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel." There is no chance, he said, that true Islam would ever allow a Jewish state to survive in the Muslim Middle East. "Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God."

I asked him if he believed, as some Hamas theologians do (and certainly as many Hezbollah leaders do) that Jews are the "sons of pigs and apes." He gave me an interesting answer that reflects a myopic reading of the Koran. "Allah changed disobedient Jews into apes and pigs, it is true, but he specifically said these apes and pigs did not have the ability to reproduce. So it is not literally true that Jews today are descended from pigs and apes, but it is true that some of the ancestors of Jews were transformed into pigs and apes, and it is true that Allah continually makes the Jews pay for their crimes in many different ways. They are a cursed people."

What are our crimes? I asked Rayyan. "[Jews] are murderers of the prophets and you have closed your ears to the Messenger of Allah," he said. "Jews tried to kill the Prophet, peace be unto him. All throughout history, you have stood in opposition to the word of God."

Rayyan was killed by the Israeli military earlier this week.

Madness on a canvass

I love watching this kind of thing...it really appeals to my creative side. Maybe I should spend some time this summer learning to paint. . .hmmmmm. . .anyway, watch this guy transform his painting over and over. . .from a very dynamic flow to a highly structured grid back to the flow and then: VIOLA!

Why do Catholic theologians dissent?

A note expanding on my post below about Fr. Roger Haight's difficulties with the Vatican.

I get asked a lot why Catholic theologians seem to stray into heresy so often. There are many, many reasons for this--adolescent attention-seeking, need for approval from the secular culture, embarrassment over the Church's use of dogmatic language and authority--but one thing I've never posted about is how the university system pushes academics to the edges and keeps them there.

What most normal people (i.e., non-academics) don't know about the academic world is how professors are hired, promoted and tenured. Every university has an elaborate system detailing every step in a professor's career, from the day he/she applies for a job to the day he/she is retired.

In this description I will have to stick to the liberal arts b/c I know nothing about how the natural sciences, business, medicine, etc. run their shows. I know the lib arts. Here's how it goes:

The theology department needs a new professor to teach systematic theology. The chair of the department informs the dean of the college who then approves (or not) the request to hire a new professor. If approved, the department, using incredibly narrow university guidelines, advertises the position in relevant academic journals. Most ads will lay out the necessary academic qualifications for the position (Ph.D. "in hand" or A.B.D, "all but dissertation") and list teaching and researching requirements. Applicants flood the department's hiring committee. This committee vetts the applications for compatibility and picks several applicants to interview. For the most part and at this point in the process, the committee members are looking for someone they believe will "fit with" the department and at the same time add something different to the mix. Successful interviewees are invited to campus to give a public lecture and meet the deans. Eventually, one of the applicants is hired.

Once hired, the new professor (usually an "assistant professor") begins teaching courses in his/her field. Along with the teaching is the universal requirement to "contribute original research to the field." This means lots of research, lots of writing, lots of publication. Initially, the new professor will begin revising his/her dissertation for publication. Good start. But it's not enough for promotion to "associate professor." For that, the new guy will need to keep a good teaching record, a solid history of service to the univeristy (usually committee drugery), and publish new research. Make no mistake, in most of the U.S.'s research universities, publishing and getting grant money is ALL that really matters when it comes to promotion and tenure. Teaching is something grad students and lazy researchers are expected to do.

It's the "publishing new research" that often lands our Catholic theologians in hot water with the magisterium. Why? In order to progress with an academic career, a professor has to publish books and articles. To get books and articles published, his/her research has to make an "original contribution;" that is, a junior theologian will go no where fast in his/her career if he/she simply articulates and defends already well-estabished theological research. It's got to be new. Who decides what counts as "new"? Research up for publication is peer-reviewed by other academics in the same field. Anonymous reviewers critique the work for originality, reliability, etc. Of late, it has become standard operating procedure in some lib arts fields to critique new research on purely ideological grounds, i.e. "does this manuscript support the oppression of women, minorities, etc. or does it promote diversity, difference, etc.?" Do not imagine for one second that Harvard University Press will be publishing a book any time soon that harshly critiques the field of "women's studies" or one that strongly defends Catholic theological orthodoxy.

Here's where the real trouble starts: if your contribution has to be new, then it follows that you cannot rely too heavily on what has already been done. Older theologies are based on well-established methodologies and certain well-respected texts and authors. To be new and improved, you have to either ignore these, find sources outside your field (psychology, philosophy, etc.), or invent your own. In orthodox Catholic theology, you never totally depart from what has already been done. You can improve arguments; dig up new evidence supporting the Church; sharpen distinctions and clarify differing opinions; you can even ask hard questions that the magisterium ignores or dismisses; but inventing new theologies is out of the question. . .if by "new theologies" we mean writing against the magisterium of the Church.

If you manage to research, write, and publish a new theology or a significant challenge to orthodoxy, you will likely be rewarded by the university with a promotion, tenure, or both. If you are really good at this sort of thing, you might win an endowed chair of some sort and never have to teach again. If you are the best at this sort of whole-clothe invention of theological novelty, you will be called to the Vatican for a spanking.

So, some of the blame for Catholic theologians who stray from the faith can be reasonably laid at the feet of American academic culture. Universities thrive on novelty, edginess, rebellion, and academic star power. They pay for it, reward it with prestige, and encourage it for P.R. purposes. Why do you think that every time the Vatican slaps a theologian on the wrist, the Catholic professorial world screams bloody murder about "academic freedom"? What they know is that if the Vatican too closely monitors their work and calls them on their errors, they may lose power and funds in the world that matters most to them: their department and the university's tenure committee.

What's interesting is that Today's Cutting Edge Research is tomorrow's Old Hat. We are already starting to see in academic theology in the U.S. younger theologians throwing off their feminist/Marxist oppressors and liberating themselves by researching and defending Catholic orthodoxy. However, because the dissenters still control the purse strings in the department and the hiring/promotion/tenure process in the university, these orthodox theologians do not get hired at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Notre Dame, etc. And given the rise and proliferation of smaller Catholic universities dedicated to the tradition, who cares if the moldy Ivy Leagues schools look askance at their orthodoxy?

But it's only a matter of time before the next generation steps up. . .let's pray they don't mess it up.

Global Warming Hoax & the Myth of Scientific Concensus

Recent evidence from the North Pole and your own backyard has shaken the ideological delusions of Climate Alarmists in the Church of Global Warming. Turns out, "global warming" is just another trendy leftist Cause, a man-made religion to collect alms (i.e. tax dollars) to fund the progress of the Nanny State.

The serious scientific world is rattling Archdruid Gore's cage with the Oregon Petition. This project has set itself the task of reviewing the research work of climate change advocates, and has consistently found their "evidence" to be deeply flawed. As a result of both past and on-going review, the scientists of the Oregon Petition Project have asked scientists world-view to sign the following petition addressed to the U.S. government:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

At last count this petition has received over 31,000 signatures from scientists world, including over 9,000 Ph.D.'s. By the way, the petition has strict guidelines for who can and cannot sign.

In a paper summarizing the available peer-reviewed research on global warming titled, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," scientists, Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, conclude:

"A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed [. . .]

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed.

We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions [. . .]

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased [. . .]

Dr. Noah Robinson has produced a video titled, "The Global Warming Myth," which neatly presents the above quoted research. Skip to 2:25 for the beginning the actual presentation.

The north pole is not melting.

Ski resorts are reporting their best year ever.

Global warming is an international hoax based on fraudulent science and a socialist political agenda.

It is has become a pseudo-religion practiced by eco-fundamentalists in the media, has-been celebrities, Marxist radicals, and quack scientists.

The Church of Global Warming claims that there is a "scientific concensus" on the reality of global warming. They are wrong.

Even the moonbats at the Huffington Report are starting to figure it all out.

So, when you hear Archdruid Al Gore pontificating on global warming while reaching for your wallet, go out in the snow and have some fun.

Pic 1: the usual suspects

Alright! For all of you who have been bugging me about posting a pic showing my hair buzzed. . .here are two.

Both taken this last Sunday (Jan 4) outside a restaurant on the corner of Via Panisperna and Via dei Serpenti. Best spaghetti carbonara I have ever eaten!

These guys are U.D. students and alums who sing for the university's Gregorian Chant choir, Collegium. They were in Rome, singing.

(L to R): Molly, Jimmy, me, Chris and Lindsay. Chris and Lindsay will be married in June!

Pic 2: all cheese

In this one I am pulling up my garters, while Lindsay A. begins an aria. Lourdez looks on, amused that I have more cheese in my grin than on my habit after lunch.

5 Theological Givens for the Co-Redemptrix

In his amazingly clear explication in the role of the Blessed Virgin's compassion and sorrow in salvation history, The Foot of the Cross Or, The Sorrows of Mary, English theologian, Fr. Frederick W. Faber, argues for the use of the title, "Co-Redemptress" when referring to Mary's contribution to Christ's unique sacrifice for our sins. He argues that the title must be understood in the context of the following five theological facts:

1) Our Blessed Lord is the sole Redeemer of the world in the true and proper sense of the word and in this sense no creature whatsoever shares the honour with Him neither can it be said of Him without impiety that He is co redeemer with Mary

2) In a secondary dependent sense and by participation all the elect co-operate with our Lord in the redemption of the world

3) In the same sense but in a degree to which no others approach our Blessed Lady co-operated with Him in the redemption of the world

4) Besides this and independent of her dolours she co-operated in it in a sense and after a manner in which no other creatures did or could

5) Furthermore by her dolours she co-operated in the redemption of the world in a separate and peculiar way separate and peculiar not only as regards the co-operation of the elect but also as regards her own other co-operation independently of the dolours.

Could not be clearer or more precise.

BTW, this book was written in the late 1840's and published in 1858. And Fr. Faber was an Anglican priest before converting to the Church under Cardinal Newman's tutelage. He was also a founding member of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri in London, the famous "Bromption Oratory."

It's cold....

Another leftist Nanny Fad bites the dust. . .ermmm. . .I mean, snow.

Anyone out there got a petition to have the old fraud's Nobel Prize revoked?

source: newsbusters.org (if you aren't reading this site regularly, it's likely you have been replaced by a Old Media pod twin. Get your DNA checked. If you have the dreaded MSNBC mutation or the NYT strain, Dr. Ann Coulter has the perfect medicine.)

The Dominican Rite (UPDATED)

The Western Dominican Province (USA) is sponsoring and hosting a conference on the
Dominican Rite of the Mass.

I'll be in the US then, so there's a good chance I'll fly out to attend. Depends on my U.D. teaching schedule and the inevitable limitations of the budget. [Update: looks like the summer term at U.D. will prevent me from attending. . .%$#@!]

If you would like to donate to the conference scholarship fund to help needy Dominicans (novices, students, etc.) attend, send your donations to:

The Living Tradition
Holy Rosary Church
375 N.E. Clackamas Street
Portland, OR 97232

Mark your donation: "for scholarships to attend the Living Tradition Conference"

Why should you donate? Easy, cheesy. Now that our incomparable Holy Father has given universal permission to all priests to celebrate the Mass in the Extraordinary Form (a.k.a. "Tridentine Mass"), Dominicans all over the world are reviving our unique tradition of the Mass as one more way of fulfilling the Pope's desire for a more solemn celebration of the sacrament that is at once organically faithful to the Church's longest liturgical tradition and appealing to a growing number of Catholic who long for an experience of the transcendent in worship. Your donation to the scholarhship fund will make it possible for budget-challenged OP's to attend. Think about what the next generation of priests will do for the Church armed with the Extraordinary Form AND the Dominican Rite! Not to mention what these two traditional rites will do to help bring the Ordinary Form (a.k.a, "Novus Ordo Mass") out of the crippling experimentation and goofiness of the 1970's!

Check it out! If you are a blogger, please link to this post so we can get the word out. . .

God bless, F. Philip, OP

And even more. . .

An even MORE!

1). Do dogs go to heaven?

No.

2). Can I wear a black wedding dress?

Sure. Are you marrying Satan?

3). What's the best way to get my pastor to stop abusing the liturgy?

Slip him a $50 and tell him there's more where that came from if he behaves.

4). Can God create a rock so big that even He can't move it?

Yes. We call it "Nancy Pelosi."

5). Should we try to Christianize the middle-east?

Yes. At gunpoint. Or we could just send in more Starbucks franchises with WWJD mugs.

6). Can infinity can measured?

Yes. But it will take some time.

7). Will having Masses said for Obama's conversion have any real affect?

No. But a good butt whopping would.

8). Who's your fav political thinker?

In order: Ann Coulter, Mao Se-Tung, and Al Franken. What can I say? I like diversity.

9). How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Is this alleged woodchucking woodchuck Italian?

10). I'm going to buy you a book. Which one on your list do you need most?

The one with the most pictures.

Questions, questions, questions

Even more questions!

1). How is a "personal relationship with Jesus" really achieved in prayer and daily life? I am particularly confused about the "personal" part.

Boy, have you ask the right priest about this! Having spent most of my life in the deep, fundamentalist Protestant South, I am intimately acquainted with the notion of a "personal relationship with Jesus." This phrase has a simple semantic meaning and a rhetorical use. The simple meaning is that we are all as individuals invited by God to encounter Jesus as a person. Now, this is rather difficult since Jesus lived over 2,000 year ago. . .afternoon tea with Lord is temporally impossible. Fortunately for us, Jesus arranged for us to meet him personally in the sacrament of the Church, most intimately in the Eucharist. We meet the person of Jesus in the Eucharist as persons ourselves--person to person, as it were. This means that the entire liturgy of the Eucharist is our chance to encounter the Risen Lord by offering ourselves through him and with him as "acceptable sacrifices." At once, with him, we are priests, victims, and the thankful beneficiaries of his "once for all" sacrifice on the cross.

Now, in my neck of the woods, the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus" has a number of rhetorical uses. Most broadly, the phrase is used to indicate that you have "been saved" by "accepting Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior." This is a pithy slogan that captures the fundamentalist Protestant idea that what matters to MY salvation is MY encounter with MY Lord. The emphasis is on ME and Jesus. This is a reaction to the Catholic teaching that we encounter the Lord most fully in the sacrament of the Church: all of US come together as one Body in Christ. What upsets our Protestant friends is the notion that we are saved as a Body rather than saved as individuals. Worried that we might come to think that membership in a denomination (Baptist, Methodist, etc.) is what saves us from Hell, Protestants emphasize the necessity of each of us coming to know Christ individually. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church is not a denomination. She is the Church, the Body; so, belonging to the Catholic Church is what it means to be a member of the Body of Christ that will be taken to Heaven. I am not saved; WE are.

The phrase is also used rhetorically to emphasize MY authority in religious matters over and against the authority of any ecclesial body. My denomination can teach and preach and make whatever rules it wants to. What matters for ME and MY salvation is MY personal relationship with Jesus. Obviously, this is a particularly American development that introduces a completely alien philosophy into the Christian tradition: democracy. In Protestant denominations almost everything can be put up for a vote to determine its truth, goodness, and beauty. Nothing is spared the scrutiny of a majority vote, including the applicability of the authority of scripture and tradition to our contemporary circumstances. The dangers here are legion. Fueled by a desire to appear "relevant" and up-to-date, one denomination after another has abandoned the classical catholic tradition in favor of modernist fads. Against centuries-old teachings, they have approved by majority vote abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, sexual activity outside of marriage, divorce, female clergy, historical-critical-linguistic criticism of the Bible, syncretistic liturgies and on and on. Without the Church, the teachings of the apostolic faith, the interpretative magisterium, and the sacraments, Christians in a group become little more than a theological debating club.

For Catholics, there is only one way to establish a personal relationship with Jesus: establish a personal relationship with his Body on earth, the Church. . .more specially, the Catholic Church.

2). You post political stuff sometimes and I wonder why you think priests have a right to talk politics. Shouldn't you just stick to religion?

No, I shouldn't nor should anyone else. The idea that our faith-lives and our political-lives should exist separated by a giant wall is a particuarly insidious philosophy that deprives us of our chance and our duty to bring the whole person into our citizenship. We cannot exist as multiple personalities: a faith personality, a political personality, an academic personality, etc. This is a mental disorder that privileges secular worldviews by supressing religious ones. You will rarely find someone who holds this idea who at the same time believes that religion is beneficial to our society. The American notion of separation of church and state was articulated and written into the US Constitution as a way of preventing the state from creating an established church on the model of the Church of England. Without the establishment clause we would have an official American church, probably the Episcopal Church! The establishment clause is meant to free the church from state interference. It is not meant to free the state from church influence. Secularists have been extraordinarily successful in persuading successive Supreme Courts that the establishment clause prevents churches from "meddling in politics" or even having a legitimate say in civil discourse. If you are crippled as an indiviudal when you adopt the multiple-personality approach to politics and religion, how much more crippled are we when we adopt this approach as a nation!

As a priest, I am duty-bound to teach and preach the Catholic faith as the Church's magisterium interprets it. When political matters impinge on religious and moral questions, I am free to teach and preach that faith. Ninety-nine percent of the time this happens, all I can offer is guidelines and advice. I am no more qualified or empowered to order Cathlics to vote for or against Candidate X than I am to order a nuclear strike on the Itailian postal service. I try as hard as I can to follow the social teachings of the Church in my politics. This means that I am a registered Independent who usually votes Republican. However, the GOP fails on any number of counts to capture the Catholic social ethic. President Bush's approval and use of torture in the war on terror is an abomination to human dignity. The Democratic Party's worship of the god of abortion is beyond reprehensible and reaches well into the demonic.

In so far as politics is about the use and abuse of civil power, the Church is always obligated to defend the poor, the oppressed, "the least" of the Lord's people. This means standing up for those who often find their innate dignity as creatures of God violated by the powerful. Old Testament prophets regularly and frequently condemned whole cities and nations for failing to take care of widows, orphans, foreigners, and the poor--all those who have no family or friends readily available to help them. Whether it's the government's job to do this is a political question open to public debate. Religious people cannot be excluded from the debate on the grounds that faith and politics are best kept lcoked in separare rooms.

3). You've mentioned many times your conversion from being a radical to being a conservative. Catholic. How did that happen?

First, I am not a conservative Catholic. I am an orthodox Catholic. One can be a perfectly faithful liberal Catholic. Being a faithful liberal Catholic is the US in 2009 is extraordinarily difficult because what it means to be liberal these days often means opposing most of the Church's moral teaching. However, it's possible. Being a conservative Catholic is easier because political conservatives usually embrace the core of Catholic moral teaching. Being an orthodox Catholic is a huge headache in our current political climate. Witness the recent presidential election and mourn.

If I had to put a date on my conversion from being a secular liberal to an orthodox Catholic, I would have to say that it happened in my first semester of seminary in 2000. One of my doctoral areas of speciality is critical literary theory. I was steeped in the postmodernist ethic of relativism, social constructivism, and identity politics. I began to notice in my novitiate that those in the religious life who held to these notions were often the ones who caused us the most trouble in terms of living out our vows. At the time, this disturbed me, but I managed marshalled my philosophical leanings and invoked the gods of subjectivism. Once I was in seminary, I saw these leanings being invoked by professors of Catholic theology against the tradition of the Church and wondered why those espousing these ideas remained in the Church. This disconnect roused my deeply engrained sense of justice, and I started asking questions. . .not always so politely, mind you. The reaction my questions received from some of these liberal professors sounded exactly like the right-wing facists I battled against in college. The hypocrisy of liberals suppressing legitimate academic inquiry shocked me. Then I did some soul-searching and remembered that I myself often used oppressive rhetoric and tactics (contra my professed liberalism) to silence anyone who failed to applaud my radical leftist agenda. That realization of personal hypocrisy and inconsistency broke open Pandora's Box, and here I am.

4). Any luck finding a publisher?

Yes! Well, I should say that I have been contacted by an acquisitions editor of a large Catholic publishing house and asked to submit proposals for books. Right now, all I can manage is a proposal for a book of contemporary Catholic devotions like the Litany of the Holy Name posted below. We'll see where it all goes. . .

5). From my Facebook account: is it OK for the priest to sit in the congregation during Mass rather than in the presider's chair? Is it OK for the priest to preach away from the pulpit ,like walking around the church?

No and no. Sitting in the congregation rather than the presider's chair was one of those liturgical innovations that was supposed to show the folks at Mass that Father is just one of the guys. It's the liturgical equivalent of 65 year old's using "dude" and "wasup?" with teenagers in order to make the teenagers think that the geezers are hip. Very embarrassing. . .for the teenagers. More than anything it is a form of what I call "liberal clericalism," that is, the use of clerical power against Church authority in an effort to undermine that authority. You see examples of this all the time when priests alter the wording of the Mass in order to be "inclusive" or to show that the priest isn't really the priest but a regular Catholic just like you. The irony of abusing clerical power to usurp the abusive use of clerical power usually escapes the abuser. What these gestures really demonstrate to the people at Mass is that Father is the priest and has the power (though not the authority) to alter rubrics at his whim. Just try talking to a priest when he does this sort thing. . .you'll get a face full of clericalism right quick!

Leaving the pulpit/ambo to preach is not in and of itself an abuse. If the priest leaves the pulpit to preach it should be for no other reason than to help the congregation hear and understand the homily. In other words, if the priest is preaching away from the pulpit, it should be for the sole benefit of the congregation. If the homily is delivered in this way so that Father might be even more the center of attention, or to give Father a thrill, then it should be avoided. I attended Mass once where the priest was The Star of the Show. He grabbed a Mr. Micorphone and spent an hour walking around the church warbling cheesy hymns about love. This told me several things about this priest: 1) he couldn't be bothered to prepare a real homily; 2) he sees himself and his ministry as a stage act to be applauded (the congregation obliged); 3) he has no idea what a homily is or is supposed to be; 4) he couldn't give a damn if his people went another week without hearing the Word preached. Sad, very sad. At this same Mass, the priest consecrated Eggo waffles. Literally, they were Eggo Waffles right out of the box. Breakfast, ya know. This same priest went outside to smoke during communion, leaving the distribution to several lay women. Communion was presented to the people in large aluminum bowls where we were invited to "chip and dip" the sacrament. He also kept the congregation well past time to go singing "Happy Birthday" and "Happy Anniversary" to several parishioners. I know another priest who makes a special effort to approach members of the parish who have complained about the chaotic nature of the peace and picks them out for his special attention. He does it, as he told me "to piss them off." As my novice master used to say when he heard about these kind of abuses: "It's all about ME! It's all about MMMEEEEE!"

6). My parish priest told me and my fiancee that we couldn't use a unity candle during the wedding. Is this right?

Yes. And good for him! The unity candle is an invention of the Catholic religious good industry. (like blue vestments and over-the-chasuble stoles). Its use is not part of the liturgy of the Sacrament of Matrimony. I've been very, very lucky with the few weddings I performed in Texas that the couples I worked with understood the liturgy and never demanded that we do anything outside the liturgy. A couple's wedding day is most certainly "their day," but this doesn't mean that they get to shape a sacrament of the Church anyway they like. Brides are particularly bad about asserting their preferences for music and liturgical color for a wedding. I know a priest who refused to preside at a couple's wedding because the bride wanted him to wear matching teal vestments! She simply could not understand why he was being so hateful on "her day." There are legends among priests about brides demanding inappropriate kinds of music, that flowers be placed on the altar, that the vows be changed to reflect feminist ideology, that the father or mother of the bride be allowed to preach the homily, that the moms and dads be allowed to renew their vows during the liturgy, that non-biblical readings be used. . .and on and no.

The only thing I have ever had to get nasty about is the use of flash photography during the sacrament. For some reason, family and friends think that it is appropriate to spend the liturgy snapping pictures. This is an affront to the solemnity of the occasion and should be absolutely forbidden. The bride and groom are just folks, not celebrities. You are guests at a Catholic sacrament, not paparazzi at a move premiere! I know a priest who was asked to "redo" the consecration of the bread and wine b/c a guest missed "the shot."

The messy business of love

[It’s a miracle! A homily! Remember those. . .?]

Christmas Week (T): 1 Jn 4:7-10; Mk 6:34-44
Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP
Convento SS Domenico e Sisto, Roma


How casually do you use the word “love”? How quickly does it trip off your tongue when necessary, yet means almost nothing at all? Or, are you some kind of Christian freak who uses “love” to mean Love and in doing so, really mean it? In English, superlatives like “awesome,” “greatest,” “wonderful,” are quickly emptied of their strictest meaning by meaningless repetition. I listened to an American comedian over the weekend who riffed on the overuse of the word “awesome.” He noted that Americans will describe hot dogs as “awesome.” He asks, “What does the next astronaut do when he lands on Mars and receives a call from the President asking him to describe the Red Planet? ‘Mr. President, Mars is awesome!’ ‘You mean like a hot dog?’ ‘Um, well, yeah, but like a billion hot dogs!’” See the problem? When everything is awesome, nothing is awesome. If love can mean something as trivial as “I don’t hate you…much” or “this is my preference,” then love is emptied of its meaning. So, for Christians, what does Love mean?

In his first letter, John writes: “…everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love.” God is Love. Now, the first thing we must do is quickly move beyond any vacuous secular notion of love and settle firmly in the middle of the Christian tradition. Love is not a fluttering stomach, or a swooning head, or a surge of hormones. Those can be signs of love, but they are not Love Himself. If we are to know God, we must love. And we are capable of loving because God, who is Love, loved us first. Since God is the source and destination of our love, when we love we come to know Him. But if our love is to be anything but an abstraction, we must love each other; that is, our love must be for other people. This means we come to know each other in and through God as God knows each of us.

How is this possible? How is it possible that we, mere humans, can come to love another as God loves us and come to know Him and others all the while loving? In his 2005 encyclical, Deus caritas est, our Holy Father, Benedict XVI, writes: “Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction”(1). We just celebrated the event: the Nativity of the Christ Child. We have just met the person—fully God, fully Man—Jesus Christ. In this event and this person, we have Love given flesh! To participate in this event, our baptism, and to meet this person, in the Eucharist, our lives as “mere” humans are transformed; we are given new life, a new horizon, a fresh ambition; we are given a decisive direction, set on an unsullied path, and gifted with every grace we need to arrive in His divine presence whole and secure. The Christ Child—human and divine—is Love in the flesh. Know him and know the One Who sent him: God.

This messy business of loving sinful men and women is no less messy because we must do so with and through Love Himself. But loving God and one another is one superlative that will not be emptied by overuse. Quite the opposite: “God sent his only-begotten Son into the world so that we might have life through him.” The longer and harder and more faithfully we love, the more we come to our perfection in this flesh and blood life of Christ.