Vivificat!: Tidbits from Hither and Thither

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Tidbits from Hither and Thither

Vivificat’s Irregular News and Commentary Roundup

Folks, these are good reads with plenty of points to ponder:

The New Missal: Disaster or Opportunity? by Rev. Robert Johansen. A quote: “I have observed that "something more" before, writing and speaking about what I describe as "ideologized" liturgy -- that is, liturgy being made to bear ideological burdens that are extrinsic and, in many cases, inimical to it. The highly charged language of many of those objecting to the new Missal is frequently ideological: When I see words like "archaic" and "tyrannical," and phrases like "a great step forward" or "a major step backward," being used in complaints about the Missal, I suspect that the train of thought is carrying heavy ideological freight. I use "ideology" here in the circumscribed manner of political theorists like Michael Oakeshott and Russell Kirk: to refer to the political fanaticism that results from elevating an abstraction to an absolute, all-explaining and all-encompassing concept, and making everything, including persons, subordinate to that concept. It is to take political concepts and impulses and make them serve ends that are properly religious.” Commentary. The sun is rapidly setting on the people who embrace a false “spirit” of Vatican II and on their intent to maintain a chatty, desacralized liturgy in English and they know it. Therefore, they have mounted an all-out effort to derail the new English translation of the Mass, with all the attending epithets, jargon, and emotional pleading. Father Johansen takes them to task.
Catholics fight move to deny schooling to children of lesbians, gays. This is a CNN piece. A quote: “Progressive Catholic groups vented outrage Friday over the decision of a Roman Catholic school in Massachusetts to rescind the admission of an 8-year-old student because his parents are lesbians. ‘The idea that a child might be punished because he does not live with his two biologic parents is antithetical to notions of Christian charity and Catholic social justice,’ said Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats, in a statement Friday.” Commentary. All of us who opted to give our children a Catholic education know that we are required to sign a contract in which we promise to become partners in our children’s Catholic education and declare that we are an active, practicing Catholic family. A gay couple can’t in conscience sign that contract and make those promises because their union is not sacramental and also contradicts the Church’s clear teaching about the origins, nature, and ends of human sexuality. The problem is not the child, but the guardian’s unwillingness to accept the Church’s moral teaching on marriage and sexuality and their refusal to raise their child accordingly. I’m not deceived, but they lesbian “parents” of this boy are using their situation as a Trojan horse to force the Church to accept the intrinsic goodness of their partnering while hiding behind their child’s real spiritual and educational needs. Surely the situation is scandalous and even despicable, but not in the sense that “progressive Catholics” portray it to the world.
Abortion, Gay ‘Marriage’ among the Most ‘Insidious and Dangerous’ Challenges: Pope. A quote: “In an address to assembled social and pastoral care workers in Fatima, Portugal yesterday, Pope Benedict identified abortion and the pressure for gay ‘marriage’ as among the most ‘insidious and dangerous challenges that today confront the common good,’ and expressed his ‘deep appreciation’ for those who fight for the rights of the unborn. Benedict hailed ‘all those social and pastoral initiatives’ that combat the ‘socio-economic and cultural mechanisms which lead to abortion, and are openly concerned to defend life and to promote the reconciliation and healing of those harmed by the tragedy of abortion.’” Commentary. Needless to say, I agree with the Holy Father and I will oppose any and every effort pretending to elevate same-sex partnership to the status of marriage, whether civil or sacramental, as well as any effort to expand so-called “abortion rights.”
A vote for Elena Kagan is a vote for gay marriage. Ms. Kagan, of course, is President Obama’s nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stevens. So says my favorite advocacy organization, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). A quote: “Why are we so certain about Kagan's vote? Three main reasons: First, she is the number two official at the Justice Department, and the Justice Department (in a high-profile DOMA case in response to a letter by Human Rights Campaign head Joe Solmonese) filed a brief specifically repudiating the main purpose of marriage. The second reason is the extreme nature of her vision of what gay equality requires. This is public record. It is one thing to oppose Don't Ask Don't Tell. It is quite another thing to tell the military that it will not be permitted to recruit at Harvard Law School so long as it obeys federal law. The third reason we are so confident a vote for Kagan is a vote to impose gay marriage is that Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign believes it. His press release praising her nomination specifically mentions the "marriage equality" case coming up before the court and is thus clearly intended to reassure LGBT voters that a vote for Kagan will be a vote for imposing gay marriage on all 50 states.” Commentary. Right on! I urge you to contact your elected representatives as well as the members of the Committee on the Judiciary via this handy form.
USSC Nominee Kagan Displays Strong Internationalist Sympathies . That comes from the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. A quote: “On Monday, President Barack Obama announced the nomination of Elena Kagan to the position of Associate Justice on the United States (US) Supreme Court. Based on a review of the rather meager writings and public statements by Kagan, a picture still emerges of a liberal activist whose sympathies for foreign law raise serious questions about how she would follow the US Constitution if she is confirmed. During her Senate confirmation hearings last year to become US Solicitor General (the attorney that represents the US government before the Supreme Court), Kagan was asked about her view of the role of consulting foreign law in statutory interpretation. Kagan responded by saying, ‘At least some members of the Court find foreign law relevant in at least some contexts. When this is the case, I think the Solicitor General's office should offer reasonable foreign law arguments to attract these Justices' support for the positions that the office is taking.’” Commentary. The idea that foreign law should impact domestic constitutional law goes hand-in-glove with the intentions of the Left of reinterpreting the Constitution in a manner friendly to their agenda. Say for example, that we were to sign an international treaty with ambiguous wording that could be interpreted as recognizing the rights of same-sex couples to marry, it would become the law of the land here, denying the rest of us any say on the matter. Same thing with abortion “rights”, and other such artificial constructs inimical to the family and society. This is another clear reason why we must oppose Ms. Kagan.