Dominican Idaho Credendum

When Did Ignorance Become a Point of View?

2009-07-11T22:49:00.001-06:00

After crawling out from under my rock and reading Thursday's outpouring of drivel from Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, I was ready to crawl right back. Newsweek.com's headline: "Without a Doubt: Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope" (and "pope" is uncapitalized in the original and throughout). That this towering monument to crass stupidity should be taken seriously in a major newsweekly is a testament to how far mainstream American culture has slid into the sewer.

Townsend begins with a summary of the President's visit with the Pope in the wake of the controversy surrounding Notre Shame's decision to award an honorary degree on the most virulently pro-abortion president ever to occupy the White House, and then offers the following:

In truth, though, Obama's pragmatic approach to divisive policy (his notion that we should acknowledge the good faith underlying opposing viewpoints) and his social-justice agenda reflect the views of American Catholic laity much more closely than those vocal bishops and pro-life activists. When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they'll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won't care, because they know Obama's on their side. In fact, Obama's agenda is closer to their views than even the pope's.

She then treats us to her "analysis" of the Pope's new encyclical (did she actually read it? If she did, does she pack the intellectual gear to understand it?), and then forfeits once and for all any claims to be taken seriously on any subject by declaring that "Obama (the community organizer from Chicago) could teach the pope a lot about politics—and what a Catholic approach to politics could entail." Barack Obama -- radical leftist pup who lucked into an office for which he is grossly unprepared -- a light illuminating the darkness. Pope Benedict -- theologian, professor, Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, author of more than 30 books, Vicar of Christ on earth -- total ignoramus.

Then we find out that the Truth in its fullness really subsists, not in the Church, but in Kathleen Kennedy Townsend:

Politics requires the ability to listen to different points of view, to step into others' shoes. Obama might call it empathy. While the pope preaches love, listening to the other has been a particular stumbling block for the Catholic hierarchy (as it is for many in power). The hierarchy ignores women's equality and gays' cry for justice because to heed them would require that it admit error and acknowledge that the self-satisfied edifice constructed around sex and gender has been grievously wrong. Before he became John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla had a telling all-or-nothing formulation: "If it should be decided that contraception is not an evil in itself then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit is on the side of the Protestant Churches." That attitude has resulted in some heinous decisions.

Most famously, in the lead up to the encyclical "Humanae Vitae" in 1968, an advisory body of theologians and laity empaneled by the pope advised that the church should reverse its position on birth control and concede that the issue should be a question for morality and for science. But authority—not truth, not love—prevailed: Pope Paul VI, listening to the advice of Wojtyla, disagreed with the majority of these advisers, who had voted 69 to 10 for change, fretting that to change this position would weaken his authority.

If only the Popes would allow Church doctrine to be decided by majority rule, then maybe Catholic doctrine would deserve to be taken seriously. But alas, this will never happen on Pope Benedict's watch. Laments Townsend: "Pope Benedict, having lived in the safety and security of the Vatican for much of his professional life, is part of this culture that silences dissent. (His last job was as the enforcer of doctrine.)" This is as opposed to the unsheltered life of Barack Obama, whose career is thoroughly uncontaminated by any experience that might suit him to repairing the appalling ignorance of the Successor of St. Peter, let alone discharging the high office which he now holds by dint of sheer dumb luck.

Then there is Townsend's tactful and delicate take on limiting the priesthood to men:

In 1979, Sister Theresa Kane, the head of the Sisters of Mercy and the president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, greeted Pope John Paul II on his first visit to the United States by proposing that the Church provide "for the possibility of women as persons being included in all ministries of our Church," including the priesthood. This was greeted with revulsion at the Vatican, which insists that the only people who can represent God in the priestly role are those with male sex organs.

As if that wasn't enough proof that the papacy is out of touch with American Catholics (instead of the other way around), the polls are there to prove how wrong Rome is. Or as Townsend puts it, "...American Catholics do not want to be told by the Vatican how to think." 54% of American Catholics think homosexual relationships are morally acceptable. 79% of American Catholics disagree with the Pope's statements about condoms and AIDS. 73% of American Catholics didn't think John Kerry should be denied Holy Communion (or "communion" as Townsend puts it). More than two thirds of American Catholics don't think the Church should try to influence Catholic votes or even Catholic candidates. If all this is true, then it's no wonder so many Catholics had no problem voting for a man who supported infanticide in the Illinois legislature. 54 percent of American Catholics voted for Obama, proving that they're "tired of watching the church grasp frantically for control at the expense of truth and love." No wonder the country is going to hell in a hand basket.

Finally, we have the justification for Notre Shame's subversion of Catholic teaching:

Notre Dame awarded the president an honorary degree because it saw the need to highlight the best of Catholic teaching as applied to politics: the ability to open the eyes of those who would prefer to keep them closed, and to open the hearts of those who would prefer not to know the pain that their actions cause.

Now if only our ignorant, benighted Pope would get on board:

The pope has a lot to learn about Catholic politics in America.

Fortunately, we have the solution, if only he would open up his mind:

Barack Obama can teach him.

Actually, come to think of it, the Church is run by majority rule. It is ruled by a majority of Three in One whose votes outweigh those of all the papal commissions and fallen Catholic universities and Barack Obamas and Kathleen Kennedy Townsends put together.

That's something we can take comfort in.

Mike T: A question 'what can we do to strengthen our chapter and make it more cohesive?'"

2009-06-10T12:51:00.003-06:00

Here is a response from myself, John, OPL:

Thank you very much for bringing up this question. It needs reflection. I will be spending some time in prayer over the next week regarding this, and will make a novena and pray the Dominican Litany. Due to the nature of the Chapter, in that it is widespread with multiple numbers of people from various walks of life, it will have some logistical problems. Of course, the variety is a source of strength as well. This is seasonally on my mind.

Here are some things to think about (remember these are just ideas): (1). Hold a quarterly meeting outside of the monthly meetings, at someone's home, with a potluck, pray together and discuss some spiritual matter etc. (2). Do a Chapter apostolate, whereby the members of the Chapter make a commitment to join together in one apostolate, i.e. do visitation at a given hospital once a week or month, i.e. obtain lists of parish members who are in a hospital and go visit them. (3). Once a month, meet at St. Paul's in Nampa or elsewhere and say a public Rosary. (4#. Determine the subject of, and plan the logistic of, and put on a colloquium or seminar on a given subject. For instance, we should do one on peace & justice issues. For instance, Mary Ellen Nourse stays in contact and she could garner a lot of interest in such an effort. (5). Post questions and discussion on the domid.credendum.blogspot.com site.

In furtherance of these ideas, one immediate thing we must consider, is that Mary Meade, Esq., who is a marriage counselor connected with one of the diocese in Maryland or about D.C. is coming out the week of August 10 to 15th of this year, 2009, along with another member of the Immaculate Conception Chapter of the OPLs at the Dominican House of Studies on the Catholic University of America campus. It will be fun to have her...Also, As there are many people who have been unable to attend a chapter meeting, I would like all to join me at my home, 6:00 p.m., Saturday, June 27th, 2009, for a potluck, prayer, and discussion. As a method of continuing education, I would invite people to read the following link, with regard to growth and fervor of our Faith and the state. It is real problem. The following article link here describes a genuine concern for government in the United States. If what happened in Europe, then American will be secularized. That must be avoided. Big government has its impact. Therefore, we could have a colloquy at that get-together on the 27th.

The link:

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp {website}

and http://www.hillsdale.edu/images/userImages/mvanderwei/Page_4221/ImprimisApril09.pdf

{pdf}.

Please read the article before commenting. After you read it, you will understand the concern. I will be praying for additional ideas and efforts. Prayer is the key we should follow. It is one way to change ourselves and our hearts toward each other.Again, Mike, how good it is you asked these questions. Let's keep praying.

Welcome Idaho Dominicans, including Phil1938, Carolyn, Anita, Mark, Bjfitz, and Mike T

2009-06-10T12:28:00.003-06:00

Do you have any comments or questions? Any posting for the next Chapter meeting? Sign in and post it here!

Green on the Outside, Red on the Inside

2009-04-24T13:19:00.012-06:00

Herewith a partial list of all the things wrong with the Earth Charter, any one of which would be a 'nuff said in itself:

1. While the Earth Charter people describe their project as "a broad-based, voluntary, civil society effort," it is clearly anything but a grass-roots movement. It is spearheaded by a bunch of Euro-leftist elitists, academic types and UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). Ex-Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev and his Green Cross International are prime movers in the Earth Charter project.

2. Because the Earth Charter is the product of a bunch of Euro-leftist elitists, academic types, UNESCO, and ex-Soviet dictators, it proceeds from an utterly unrealistic view of the world, of reality, and of human nature. For example, the Earth Charter lists among its goals the elimination of poverty and the elimination of corruption in all public and private institutions, thereby overlooking the reality of original sin and the admonition of Jesus that the poor we will always have with us.

3. The Earth Charter is based on the assumption that puny humanity, going about its everyday life and improving its standard of living, has the power to destroy a planet that, for the last 4.6 billion years, has survived, unruffled, meteoric impacts, volcanoes, tornadoes, vast floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, solar flares, and other catastrophes, none of which we can even come close to reproducing.

4. The Earth Charter promotes universal health care, redistribution of wealth, vitiation of private property rights -- in short, socialism.

5. The Earth Charter promotes global government.

6. The Earth Charter contains what are tantamount to built-in emergency powers that may be triggered arbitrarily. Pursuant to Article I, Section 6, Paragraph (a), the Charter would authorize whatever governing authority is acting pursuant to its provisions to "take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive." The following paragraph would "place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm." All of this proves that the Earth Charter is nothing more than a governmental power grab and not concerned with protecting the environment.

7. The Earth Charter would destroy the free market. Article I, Section 7, Paragraph (d) provides: "Internalize the full environmental and social costs of goods and services in the selling price, and enable consumers to identify products that meet the highest social and environmental standards."

8. The Earth Charter is pro-contraception and pro-abortion. Article I, Section 7, Paragraph (e) provides that the Charter would "ensure universal access to health care that fosters reproductive health and responsible reproduction. " Nobody can reasonably argue that these are not code words for abortion and population control.

9. The Earth Charter purports to create synthetic rights, such as the "rights" to potable water, safe food and sanitary living conditions, that actually serve to vitiate authentic human rights, especially the right to private property. Article III, Section 9, Paragraph (a) provides that these "rights" are to be guaranteed by "allocating the national and international resources required" -- i.e., legalized looting.

10. While Article III, Section 12 of the Earth Charter purports to guarantee freedom of religion, it also purports to guarantee a "right" of "indigenous people" "to their spirituality, knowledge, lands and resources and to their related practice of sustainable livelihoods." That would seem to make a crime out of spreading the Gospel, thereby vitiating the religious freedom of, oh, Christians.

11. The Earth Charter purports, at one and the same time, to drill children and youth in "contribut[ing] actively to sustainable development" and to guarantee the right of dissent. Does anybody seriously think dissent from the Religion of Sustainability would ever be tolerated under the Earth Charter?

12. The Earth Charter is full of New Age baloney. Article IV, Section 16, Paragraph (f) stipulates: "Recognize that peace is the wholeness created by right relationships with oneself, other persons, other cultures, other life, Earth, and the larger whole of which all are a part." Yuck.

And last, but certainly not least:

13. The Earth Charter is utterly Godless.

It would be easier to list all the things that are not wrong with the Earth Charter.

Colloquia: The Earth Charter

2009-04-23T14:59:00.002-06:00

Have you read The Earth Charter. Check out the link. Do you see any problems with it? Comments.

http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/

Colloquia: Truth and Honesty.

2009-04-23T13:41:00.000-06:00

Post here any responses you may have regarding the following question:

What is the difference between truth and honesty?

Dedication

2009-04-23T11:33:00.000-06:00

This is dedicated to the Idaho Dominican Laity, for purposes of discussion, proposition of questions regarding the Faith, Church, and assorted other things that really do matter to our daily lives.

Each member of the Lay Dominicans may access this blog, enter questions, disputes, argument, discussion, or notation in response to questions and issues raised early. It is meant to create a place of "disputatio" or discussion in classic Dominican fashion, to help us aid in the expressing the reason for our Faith and belief in Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior and Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.