Archbishop Chaput and A Letter To The Romans

Charles Chaput, the archbishop of Philadelphia, writes on the Archdiocesan website about Paul's letter to the Romans and its' application to today's Christians.  He points out that it is integral to the New Testament, writing:

The Church has always revered it as part of the inspired Word of God and incorporated it into her thought and practice.  The books of Scripture, even when they’re morally demanding, are not shackles.  They’re part of God’s story of love for humanity.  They’re guide rails that lead us to real dignity and salvation. 

He contrasts two recent publications, one by James Martin SJ,
and another by Daniel Mattson.

He writes of Fr Martin's book: 

Father Martin is a man whose work I often admire. Building a Bridge, though brief, is written with skill and good will. 

But what the text regrettably lacks is an engagement with the substance of what divides faithful Christians from those who see no sin in active same-sex relationships.  The Church is not simply about unity – as valuable as that is – but about unity in God’s love rooted in truth.  If the Letter to the Romans is true, then persons in unchaste relationships (whether homosexual or heterosexual) need conversion, not merely affirmation.  If the Letter to the Romans is false, then Christian teaching is not only wrong but a wicked lie.  Dealing with this frankly is the only way an honest discussion can be had. 

He contrasts Fr Martin's book with words from Mattson's book:

As Cardinal Robert Sarah writes in the Foreword, Mattson’s candor about his own homosexuality, his struggles and failures, and his gradual transformation in Jesus Christ “bears witness to the mercy and goodness of God, to the efficacy of his grace, and to the veracity of the teachings of his Church.”

 His article is brief and well written.  It is well worth your time to read it.

George Weigel, Catholic Lite and the death of Europe

At First Things, George Weigel writes an article discussing the demographic suicide of Europe.  

He begins by recalling the main points of a book he wrote some ten years ago, and a particular response from an Italian Euro-parliamentarian:

“Look, we know we’re finished. We’re trying to arrange things so that we can die comfortably in our beds. Don’t you Yanks come over here and start stirring things up.” 

He notes that he was reminded of this after the recent French election where it had been pointed out:

that the prime ministers or presidents of Europe’s largest economies—and of all the European members of that exclusive global club, the G7—are without children

 He then turns to what he refers to as the Catholic Lite Brigade.

In recent years, the Catholic Lite Brigade has reasserted itself in western Europe and in the counsels of the world Church. It is time to ask whether Catholic Lite—as displayed in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and elsewhere—does not have something to do with Europe’s demographic meltdown. It is time to ask whether Catholic Lite is not at least partially responsible, not only for Europe’s self-chosen sterility, but for Europe’s rapidly accelerating embrace of euthanasia. It is time to ask why Catholic Lite has been such an abysmal failure in forming public moral cultures in which self-gift, not self-aggrandizement, is the touchstone of human aspiration.

The gift of self, a hallmark phrase that echoes in the documents of Vatican II and the writings of Pope St John Paul II, is the antithesis of self aggrandizement.  

In our own culture, the failure to recognize that marriage
is a gift from God, a gift of self in the light of Christ, leads to a death, a self-inflicted death for our culture too.  


Be sure to read Weigel's article in its' entirety.

Cardinal Sarah in Germany

Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, delivered an excellent talk at a Colloquium entitled "The Source of the Future,” in Herzogenrath Germany.  His focus is on the Liturgy and its' renewal.

He begins with a little history about what was called in the early 20th century “the liturgical movement."  Beginning with Pope Saint Pious X and his motu propio and its intention:

to restore the liturgy so as to make its treasures more accessible, so that it might also become again the source of authentically Christian life. 

He ties this to Sacrosanctum Concilium, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and addresses the motu propio "Summorum Pontificum," which was promulgated ten years ago, and whose anniversary is the reason for the Colloquium.

One of his comments:

The liturgy must therefore always be reformed so as to be more faithful to its mystical essence. But most of the time, this “reform” that replaced the genuine “restoration” intended by the Second Vatican Council was carried out in a superficial spirit and on the basis of only one criterion: to suppress at all costs a heritage that must be perceived as totally negative and outmoded so as to excavate a gulf between the time before and the time after the Council.

I think this well describes what Benedict XVI referred to as a hermeneutics of disruption.

He continues:

Now it is enough to pick up the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy again and to read it honestly, without betraying its meaning, to see that the true purpose of the Second Vatican Council was not to start a reform that could become the occasion for a break with Tradition, but quite the contrary, to rediscover and to confirm Tradition in its deepest meaning. 

The Cardinal addresses a number of points citing Pope Benedict, Sacrosanctum Concilium, a number of liturgists, and reflects on some statements from some bishops in the aftermath of Vatican II.

He makes so many excellent points, it is difficult to summarize them, and I encourage you to read the text of his talk slowly and thoroughly, in its' entirety.

Kathryn Jean Lopez and snow in New York City during lent

Kathryn Jean Lopez writes at National Review an article concerning a tender message found in the midst of the recent snow in NY city.

She describes two encounters she has (one with Cardinal Dolan's homily, the other with a beggar on the streets of Manhattan) and ties the two together.  She concludes:

How would it all be different if we took a step away from the noise and spent more time with those who might otherwise be forgotten and cast aside? What if we didn’t get sucked into frustrating political news stories and celebrity and saw our own power more? What if we made a choice for hearts as pure as the freshly fallen snow?

She writes a self reflective piece addressing her encounters and how they, in this season of Lent affected her.  You ought to read her article.

Bishop Robert Barron and "Total Recall"

The catch phrase from the movie Total Recall is Arnold Schwarzenegger saying "Who the hell am I?"

And many see this as the fundamental question involved in most literature.   A variation of this question is posed by Christ to his disciples at Caesarea-Philippi.  "Who do you say that I am?"

Bishop Robert Barron discusses a shift in questioning away from this one and its' implications for preaching, teaching, and evangelizing Christianity in an article posted at Word on Fire.

He begins by referencing a recent book  by Thomas Joseph White, and references Church Councils, and ancient theologians.  Then he discusses a dramatic shift in emphasis a couple of centuries ago which was still being taught when he was in seminary which he refers to as “consciousness Christology."

He discusses the implication of the change in emphasis and how it fundamentally alters our perspective.  He writes:

It is easy enough to see that the transition from an ontological Christology to a consciousness Christology has conduced toward all manner of relativism, subjectivism, indifferentism, and the attenuation of evangelical zeal.

It is an excellent article and you should read it in its' entirety.

Kathryn Lopez on "America's biggest serial killer"

Kathryn Lopez writes at National Review about a new book concerning the Kernit Gosnell trial, and a movie about it, that hasn't reached distribution yet.  She writes about the journey of the authors of the book, Ann McElhinney and her husband:

McElhinney’s interest in the trial was not ideological. She wasn’t pro-life, and she’s quick to tell you that she “never trusted or liked pro-life activists.” 

and

But Gosnell changed things for McElhinney. “I got an education on abortion because of researching and investigating this story,” she tells me. 

She quotes McElhinney:

Hundreds of African-American babies were born alive and then murdered. Where is the outrage for those black lives that matter? Progressive Pennsylvania with all of its government agencies couldn’t have cared less. Where’s the outrage for that?

It is important for you read her entire article.

Katherine Timpf and Jay Nordlinger on Words, Gender and God

At National Review On-Line there are a couple of interesting articles concerning words involving gender and their application to God.

Firstly, there is an article by Jay Nordlinger about the use of words and masculine, feminine and neuter genders for those words.

He begins by writing about an article written in 1972 proposing the "desexing" of the language.  He then writes:

“To each their own” is ungrammatical. “To each his or her own” is uneuphonious. Pick your poison. Or stick to your guns.

Like “tey” and the rest, “genkind” has not caught on, thank goodness. “Humankind” is bad enough. Why did people ever begin to think that “mankind” referred, not to people in general, but to men only? Why did they begin to think that about “man” — as in “the rights of man”?

The supposition that the word "man" has a single meaning is patently absurd, and to ascribe to the word only that meaning guts the language of its' power.

To my mind the word "humankind" is an abomination, and should be excised from the practice of the language.

A second article, this one by Katherine Timpf, deals with extending this language based absurdity to the realm of discussing God.

She addresses this by pointing to actions at divinity schools at Duke and Vanderbilt.  She notes how this is contrary to Christian Theology writing:

According to Heat Street, Duke’s particular divinity school is “geared toward people already working in the Methodist church, taking supplemental weekend or summer classes.” Yes, “Methodist,” as in the Christian religion that has already completely, officially, 100 percent decided that their God is a man. And yet, Duke’s guidelines suggest avoiding gender specific pronouns when discussing Him and suggest using “God” and “Godself” instead.

(Yes — “Godself.”)

This may be news to Miss Timpf, but such shenanigans have been common among some women in the Catholic Church for nearly two decades.

I clearly recall women, who were Readers at Mass, changing the pronouns in the Lectionary on the fly because they were convinced that the ones written in the Lectionary were "exclusive."  They not only changed the words from the ones approved by the Bishops, but they also insisted that other Readers follow their example, claiming that the local ordinary had given them that direction. 

It is asinine!  As Christians we follow Jesus, the living bread come come down from Heaven, the Way, the Truth and the Life, the Light of the world, the fullness of God's revelation of himself, who clearly teaches us to call God Father, Abba, Vater.

Paul writes to us that God has sent the Spirit of His son into our hearts crying out Abba, Father.  If you are not crying out Abba, do you have the Spirit of the Son of God residing in your heart?

Jesus does not pray Mater Nostra, nor Unser Muhti.  He doesn't say oma, nor opa, nor Our Mother, nor Our Parent.  In the words Our Savior taught us we pray Our Father, Unser Vater, Pater Noster.


May this stupidity of so called gender inclusion, come to an end.