This photo was taken by Christian Gooden of the Post-Dispatch, and displays a section of Big Bend Blvd. between Highway 40 and Clayton Road. Nearer to home, part of the awning and roof of Ted Drewes was blown off. I also saw about 10-12 windows of the University Club Tower blown out and smashed. I hope all in the area came through last night’s excitement without injury.
This is the second in the series of sermons on the Seven Deadly Sins by the Canons of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest at St. Francis de Sales Oratory. This sermon was delivered yesterday by Canon Michael Wiener:
– must move secondly the affections, so that a man willingly listens to the word of God, not indeed with a view to his own favor, but in order to draw them to listen to God’s word,
– and thirdly, he who preaches must speak in order that men may love that which is signified by the word, and desire to fulfill it.
– Envy is also sadness or sorrow, but sadness about the goods of and goodness in others. It is “grief over a man’s good, in so far as his good surpasses ours”. Sloth and envy are both types of sadness or grief, but envy is a developed form of it in so far as it turns against the fruits of God’s love in others.
– Hatred, finally, is sadness over the blessedness of our neighbor as such, without any comparison, without any other reason than pure denial and malignity. Hatred as capital sin committed by a living person is the last stop on the way to hell, where there is hatred without reason – and without end.
We see here why envy belongs to the deadly sins: Its essential character is directed against the love of God, God Himself, Who is the source of all goodness – in us and in all men. And if envy is sorrow for the increase of God’s grace in our neighbor, “it is accounted a sin against the Holy Ghost, because thereby a man envies, as it were, the Holy Ghost Himself, Who is glorified in His works.”
Envy weeps at those who rejoice and rejoices at those who weep. Weeping over our neighbor’s good – which is envy, gives rise to joy in his evil.
Of course: Also envy is committed as a grave and mortal sin only if both – our knowledge and our will – fully embrace this sadness over our neighbor’s goods. St. Thomas says: “Nevertheless, in every kind of mortal sin we find certain imperfect movements in the sensuality, which are venial sins: … so in [regard to]… envy we find sometimes even in perfect men certain first movements, which are venial sins.”
What is the remedy against this sin? What can be done if we are tempted by envy? What shall we do if envy is able to resound in us?
I am about to cite to two (TWO!) articles in the National “Catholic” Reporter, both of which are by John L. Allen, and both of which have some good things to say.
Told you it was mass hysteria.
First, Cardinal Antonios Naguib, the Coptic Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt, is of the opinion that the January 1 attack on Coptic Christians widely attributed to Islamic fundamentalists may have been a false flag operation conducted on former President Mubarak’s orders. Food for thought. Read the article here.
Secondly, Allen blogs that “Traditionalists add spice to the Catholic stew“. Even that much praise and acknowledgement from an NCR writer seems a glorious thing. I will excerpt a few sections of that article, with my comments and emphases:
If ever an object lesson were needed in the complexities of running the universal Catholic Church, a recent interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Swiss head of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, offers it in living color. It may be an especially apposite read for liberals, both inside and outside the church, who sometimes struggle to grasp that there’s actually Catholic life to the right of the pope.
Granted, although its bishops are no longer excommunicated, the Society of St. Pius X — which broke with Rome in 1988, when the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained bishops in defiance of the pope — has no formal standing in the church (that might be stating it a little too broadly). Granted, too, we journalists probably pay more attention to the traditionalists than their real-world following might justify (he speaks of numbers, not of the truth to which they adhere, I assume), largely because they often say and do inflammatory things (real or imputed) that make great copy.
Even with those stipulations, the climate of opinion represented by the Society of St. Pius X nonetheless remains an important part of the broader Catholic conversation.
In terms of news value, the headline from the Feb. 2 Q&A with Fellay, posted on the society’s American web site, is that a round of talks with the Vatican is coming to an end without resolution — because, in Fellay’s view, Rome refuses to concede the “contradictions” between the eternal Catholic faith and the innovations introduced by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65).
Fellay also announces that two new stumbling blocks have emerged along the path to reconciliation: Benedict XVI’s plan to host an inter-religious summit in Assisi this October (as the next paragraph alludes, this isn’t really new), and the May 1 beatification of Pope John Paul II.
On Assisi there’s no surprise, since the Lefebvrites (and many, many others) lodged similar protests when John Paul II assembled religious leaders there in 1986, and again in 1993 and 2002, to pray for peace. (Their objection is the risk of syncretism, or the combining of different religious beliefs.) I think risk is an understatement. And don’t forget about scandal. And don’t forget about grave violations of the first commandment.
Facing yet another Assisi summit, Fellay calls on Catholics to pray that the “Good Lord intervenes in one way or another” — which some in Rome, by the way, took as a not-so-subtle prayer for Benedict to die (who? give me a break) before the event can take place (this is an uncalled for insinuation)— and in case that doesn’t happen, to “start making reparation now.”
What may be more counter-intuitive, at least for some (the same “some”, no doubt), is the fiercely negative reaction to the beatification of John Paul II, which Fellay defines as “a serious problem.”
Here’s why: According to Fellay, John Paul led “a pontificate that caused things to proceed by leaps and bounds in the wrong direction, along ‘progressive’ lines, toward everything that they call ‘the spirit of Vatican II.’ This is therefore a public acknowledgment not only of the person of John Paul II, but also of the Council and the whole spirit that accompanied it.” A more thoughtful critique of some of the issues of concern was penned by Fr. Brian Harrison, in a “devil’s advocate” style, in Latin Mass Magazine. Part one can be found at this blog post, scroll down.
That will likely be a stunning assertion for many left-leaning Catholics, who simply can’t fathom seeing John Paul in those terms. Yet if you put the pieces together the right way — such as John Paul’s ecumenical and inter-religious outreach, his social teaching, even the style of his liturgical celebrations (think World Youth Day) — one can begin to see how a traditionalist might style him a terribly “progressive” pope.
Whatever one makes of Fellay’s views, it’s tempting, from the perspective of Realpolitik, to dismiss them as irrelevant. The society’s following is fairly miniscule — even if one takes the high-end estimate of one million faithful, that’s less than one tenth of one percent of the global Catholic population. What percentage of those who go to Mass every Sunday, I wonder?
Yet the number and influence of Catholics who may feel some sympathy for the positions taken by the society should not be under-estimated, and any Vatican regime (only the NCR would refer to the Holy See as a regime) would feel obligated to try to heal what they regard as the lone formal schism to follow Vatican II.
The traditionalist perspective is thus something church leaders have to consider as they survey the Catholic landscape.
If nothing else, all this illustrates a core insight about the political science of the church: If you think the answers to the questions facing Catholicism are ever obvious, or that making any policy decision ever comes without a cost, you simply don’t understand the stew of competing pressures and perspectives that make up ecclesial life. (This is part of the fear of the SSPX, as I understand it–that regardless of whether they are given faculties and standing, they will become just one exhibit in the zoo, where any opinion or practice “goes”.) As John XXIII once put it, a pope has to consider the views both of those with their foot on the gas, and those with their foot on the brake.
When speculation about the motu proprio began to gather steam in 2007, there were fairly dramatic forecasts of its impact on all sides of the debate. Some devotees of the older liturgy predicted that its inner power and beauty would prove so compelling that in a free market environment, Catholics would “vote with their feet” against the new Mass. Critics warned that reintroduction of the Tridentine Mass would fracture the unity of the church and herald a broader “rolling back of the clock”.
Four years down the line, such predictions now seem a little over-hyped. Whatever one makes of it, the motu proprio so far does not seem to have triggered an earthquake. It takes awhile, Mr. Allen– just ask those who still front for the idea that the great renewal of Vatican II just needs more time to spread.
After this post, Allen shifts to an interview he had with Fr. Richard Hilgartner, Executive Director of the Secretariat for Divine Worship of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, about the motu proprio and the Traditional Mass.
* * *
Are seminarians today being trained in celebrating the extraordinary form?
It’s probably unrealistic to expect seminaries to provide the kind of training and formation that would mean every new priest, upon ordination, emerges ready to celebrate it. Of course! Why would a Catholic SEMINARY train priests who say the Roman Rite to actually say the authorized forms of the Rite? Preposterous! The nerve of these crazy trads! There are a lot of technicalities in the older rite. Liturgical formation is already taxed by many other things (like learning to use marionettes, perhaps), and it’s hard to squeeze in something else (when you refer to the Mass as “something else” that has to be “squeezed in” you really highlight the depths of the problem) that’s incredibly involved and time-consuming. Many seminaries are offering a broad introduction, and then for those who are really interested there are places they can go, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and the St. John Cantius Society. They’ll go for a workshop, and then they have to commit to practicing it.
Benedict XVI seems to hope that the extraordinary form will gradually influence the approach to the ordinary form, nudging it in the direction of greater reverence and appreciation for tradition. Do you see evidence that’s happening?
It’s limited, because there are plenty of people who never see the extraordinary form. And why is that? More broadly, though, the whole climate of the church today might be focusing on things that perhaps we weren’t paying a whole lot of attention to before, especially the integrity of the rites. A damaging admission. In that sense, the extraordinary form can help shape the regular liturgical experience — not by taking on its trappings or externals, but by calling attention to the importance of celebrating faithfully, with a sense of reverence, understanding that the rite itself has a beauty built into it. The Tridentine form is maybe hyper-sensitive ha! to the rubrics and performing the prescriptions of the rite accurately, but it can help us be more attuned to those things in the ordinary form.
Christ said that there was more joy in Heaven over one repentant sinner than over 99 just. Well, we are all sinners, of course, to larger or smaller extents. But Our Lord’s words come to mind with the news of the conversion and public repudiation by a former (not really) deacon who was (fake) ordained by the heretical gals over at the creatively named “Roman Catholic Womenpriests” gang.
I wasn’t going to post this, as many bloggers already have, but I just can’t get over how great the mercy of God is in our lives. This woman, Norma Jean Coon, has made her repentance and repudiation of her actions public, and it deserves to get to the seven readers who may not have seen it. Praise God!
I wish to renounce the alleged ordination and publicly state that I did not act as a deacon as a part of this group except on two occasions, when I read the gospel once at mass and distributed communion once at this same mass. I withdrew from the program within two weeks of the ceremony because I realized that I had made a mistake in studying for the priesthood. I confess to the truth of Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis . I confess the authority of the Holy Father on these issues of ordination and recognize that Christ founded the ordination only for men.
Formally, I relinquish all connection to the program of Roman Catholic Women Priests and I disclaim the alleged ordination publicly with apologies to those whose lives I have offended or scandalized by my actions. I ask God’s blessings upon each of these folks and their families.
She makes this prayer:
Holy God, I ask your blessings on my Bishop and my pastor and priests in Rome who have assisted me in the process of being re-instated into the Roman Catholic Church and I forsake all connection with the Roman Catholic Women Priests program via Internet or otherwise.
I thank you for the efforts of my family in my behalf and ask for Jesus’ Light and Love to pour over my husband of 47 years and my five children.
Forgive me my Beloved Jesus and Mother Mary for pursuing my own will in this matter of ordination and as I consecrate myself to your Divine Will through the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I ask you to pour out Light and Love upon any who have placed themselves outside of your Love and Light Bless us, O Lord, for these thy gifts and place us in the Heart of the Father, as we pray for more priests to serve in our church and for vocations to enrich our Church in the United States.
Forgive us for failing in obedience and enrich us in your Holy Love, I pray through Jesus and Mary. Fiat+
P.S. The story is that she’s attending an FSSP apostolate. Don’t tell Rose and Elsie– it would blow their minds.
…Father Brown took the paper without a word, and obediently went to look for the coat; it was not the first menial work he had done in his life. He brought it and laid it on the counter; meanwhile, the strange gentleman who had been feeling in his waistcoat pocket, said laughing: “I haven’t got any silver; you can keep this.” And he threw down half a sovereign, and caught up his coat.
Father Brown’s figure remained quite dark and still; but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was always most valuable when he had lost it. In such moments he put two and two together and made four million. Often the Catholic Church (which is wedded to common sense) did not approve of it. Often he did not approve of it himself. But it was real inspiration–important at rare crises–when whosoever shall lose his head the same shall save it.
“I think, sir,” he said civilly, “that you have some silver in your pocket.”
The tall gentleman stared. “Hang it,” he cried, “if I choose to give you gold, why should you complain?”
“Because silver is sometimes more valuable than gold,” said the priest mildly; “that is, in large quantities.”
The stranger looked at him curiously. Then he looked still more curiously up the passage towards the main entrance. Then he looked back at Brown again, and then he looked very carefully at the window beyond Brown’s head, still coloured with the after-glow of the storm. Then he seemed to make up his mind. He put one hand on the counter, vaulted over as easily as an acrobat and towered above the priest, putting one tremendous hand upon his collar.
“Stand still,” he said, in a hacking whisper. “I don’t want to threaten you, but–“
“I do want to threaten you,” said Father Brown, in a voice like a rolling drum, “I want to threaten you with the worm that dieth not, and the fire that is not quenched.”
“You’re a rum sort of cloak-room clerk,” said the other.
“I am a priest, Monsieur Flambeau,” said Brown, “and I am ready to hear your confession.”
The other stood gasping for a few moments, and then staggered back into a chair.
“Hallo, there!” called out the duke. “Have you seen anyone pass?”
The short figure did not answer the question directly, but merely said: “Perhaps I have got what you are looking for, gentlemen.”
They paused, wavering and wondering, while he quietly went to the back of the cloak room, and came back with both hands full of shining silver, which he laid out on the counter as calmly as a salesman. It took the form of a dozen quaintly shaped forks and knives.
“You–you–” began the colonel, quite thrown off his balance at last. Then he peered into the dim little room and saw two things: first, that the short, black-clad man was dressed like a clergyman; and, second, that the window of the room behind him was burst, as if someone had passed violently through. “Valuable things to deposit in a cloak room, aren’t they?” remarked the clergyman, with cheerful composure.
“Did–did you steal those things?” stammered Mr. Audley, with staring eyes.
“If I did,” said the cleric pleasantly, “at least I am bringing them back again.”
“But you didn’t,” said Colonel Pound, still staring at the broken window.
“To make a clean breast of it, I didn’t,” said the other, with some humour. And he seated himself quite gravely on a stool. “But you know who did,” said the, colonel.
“I don’t know his real name,” said the priest placidly, “but I know something of his fighting weight, and a great deal about his spiritual difficulties. I formed the physical estimate when he was trying to throttle me, and the moral estimate when he repented.”
“Oh, I say–repented!” cried young Chester, with a sort of crow of laughter.
Father Brown got to his feet, putting his hands behind him. “Odd, isn’t it,” he said, “that a thief and a vagabond should repent, when so many who are rich and secure remain hard and frivolous, and without fruit for God or man? But there, if you will excuse me, you trespass a little upon my province. If you doubt the penitence as a practical fact, there are your knives and forks. You are The Twelve True Fishers, and there are all your silver fish. But He has made me a fisher of men.”
“Did you catch this man?” asked the colonel, frowning.
Father Brown looked him full in his frowning face. “Yes,” he said, “I caught him, with an unseen hook and an invisible line which is long enough to let him wander to the ends of the world, and still to bring him back with a twitch upon the thread.”
–from The Queer Feet, by G.K. Chesterton
The Canons of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest at St. Francis de Sales Oratory have begun a Series of Sermons on the Seven Deadly Sins for each of the Sundays of Septuagesima/Lent before the great feast of Easter.
Canon Aaron Huberfeld delivered the first sermon this past Sunday on the Capital Vice of Sloth. He was kind enough to send the text for publication:
It is as though some eccentric person, knowing my usual suspicions and pet themes of modern Life in These United States, put together the Saint Louis Catholic Perfect Storm News Story ™. To the cloud:
Let’s take the issues one at a time:
1. The child, the story says, was only following the orders of his therapist. Oh. Huh? Following the orders of his therapist, eh? I guess that means this 11-year old boy was undergoing therapy. For what malady? Schizophrenia? Kleptomania? A tendency to burn houses down? No, friends, he was undergoing therapy for attention deficit disorder (ADD). Why are parents so quick to turn their children over to the control of “experts” whose advice turns out to be so sterling? The therapist interviewed in this story sure looked eager to assure everyone that Li’l Tim wasn’t a threat. I wonder if he has made that call to check on the validity of his umbrella policy yet. Yikes.
2. That leads me to another issue with the common ADD diagnosis. I am not here to deny that this condition could never exist, but rather to point to the overdiagnosis and overmedication of children so that parents aren’t inconvenienced. You know, sometimes children act up, and sometimes they are raised poorly so that they act up a whole lot. The story doesn’t mention it, but I wonder if the boy was on mind-affecting medication when he drew the picture. If so, wouldn’t he have a defense to the charge? And if not, shouldn’t the parents and therapist be charged as accessories to stick figure crime?
3. Now let’s examine the role of the police. They showed unusual perspicacity in determining that this drawing made an 11-year old boy a threat to humanity. They very kindly handcuffed this 11-year old boy and locked him up, only to charge him with the Nuremberg-like charge of “interfering with staff and students at an educational facility”. Let that phrase sit there a minute. Wouldn’t Orwell laugh? Remind me not to send one of my posts critical of Lincoln to the principal of the school where a certain reader sends his children or I might end up doing twenty-to-life. I wonder if the police chief went home that night and popped some champagne, knowing he just stopped the next Columbine.
4. And how did our educational system fare? Not well. At first, I was inclined to give the school credit, as: a) it sent the boy home and then allowed him back after they determined he was not a threat; and, b) the story states it “initially” did not want to press charges. After the stories of the past 18 months where children were disciplined for having toy soldiers or Legos with tiny plastic fake guns, and where children were handcuffed and arrested for writing on a desk with marker, this seemed Solomonic by comparison. But not so fast. How did the police even know about the drawing? The therapist couldn’t, and the parents wouldn’t, turn the boy in. Only the school had access to the drawing. And the ultimate charge, combined with the description that the school didn’t “initially” want to press charges, strongly indicates that the school system ultimately agreed to provide evidence of the “crime” and to support the charge. Looking at the picture and the paucity of verbal expression contained therein, I am inclined to think the school is better at determining just which stick drawings are dangerous than at teaching the three Rs.
5. In this public news broadcast, the parents state they don’t want to be identified or give their real names. I should think not. And funny that only now are they wanting to keep family business private. Whatever their wishes, the media has them now. I hope that their child’s “condition” really did require serious intervention, or else they have not only done damage to his development but also have stigmatised their son in at least one school system as a potential killer at worst, and mentally unbalanced at least.
Everyone in this little story seems to be out of central casting for the blockbuster movie about the full-frontal lobotomizing of our Springerized, Oprahized, Godless contemporary society.
Like I said, it moved me.
Hi, I’m just back from a visit to one of our state’s fine county jails. Visiting, mind you– I don’t need one of those get-out-of-jail-free cards that portrays rich Uncle Pennybags in striped pajamas. Just visiting.
Anyway, in my journeying I had the opportunity to fire up the ol‘ internet browser and see what the news world has to offer. What I saw prompted this potpourri post.
First of all, let me express my sadness at the New Zealand earthquakes, centered again in Christchurch. The images of the damage are arresting. I have a personal interest in Christchurch, among other reasons, because the traditional Redemptorist order called the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer (FSSR) have a house there. I link to them at the sidebar, but here is a post that shows the devastation. The Catholic Cathedral is severely damaged, and many in the city are dead or missing.
Here is a video, also at their site:
Democrats keep running away, first in Wisconsin, now in Indiana, to avoid even allowing a vote on cutting back on the extortion/collective bargaining of taxpayer largess. So much for the “will of the people” in elections. If only the Republicans did the same to block the Great Leap Forward socialized-medicine-with-funding-for-abortions-and-euthanasia bill. Of course then the media might have taken a different tack.
Oil is up 9% due to Mideast worries, the dollar is increasingly worthless, Vermont joins a growing number of other states in seeking the path of the destruction of any state influence in national affairs, and TSA is still just as competent as ever.
Just another day at rest stop near the end of civilization.
THAT Saint Peter, before he went to Rome, founded the see of Antioch is attested by Eusebius, Origen, St. Jerom, St. Innocent, Pope Gelasius, in his Roman Council, St. Chrysostom and others. It was just that the prince of the apostles should take this city under his particular care and inspection, which was then the capital of the East, and in which the faith took so early and so deep root as to give birth in it to the name of Christians. St. Chrysostom says, that St. Peter made there a long stay: St. Gregory the Great, that he was seven years bishop of Antioch; not that he resided there all that time, but only that he had a particular care over that church. If he sat twenty-five years at Rome, the date of his establishing his chair at Antioch must be within three years after our Saviour’s ascension; for in that supposition he must have gone to Rome in the second year of Claudius.
The festival of St. Peter’s chair in general, Natale Petri de Cathedrâ, is marked on this day in the most ancient calendar extant, made in the time of Pope Liberius, about the year 354. It also occurs in Gregory’s sacramentary, and in all the martyrologies. It was kept in France in the sixth century, as appears from the council of Tours, and from Le Conte.
In the first ages it was customary, especially in the East, for every Christian to keep the anniversary of his baptism, on which he renewed his baptismal vows, and gave thanks to God for his heavenly adoption: this they called their spiritual birth-day. The bishops in like manner kept the anniversary of their own consecration, as appears from four sermons of St. Leo on the anniversary of his accession or assumption to the pontifical dignity; and this was frequently continued by the people after their decease, out of respect to their memory. St. Leo says, we ought to celebrate the chair of St. Peter with no less joy than the day of his martyrdom; for as in this he was exalted to a throne of glory in heaven, so by the former he was installed head of the church on earth.
On this festival we are especially bound to adore and thank the divine goodness for the establishment and propagation of his church, and earnestly to pray that in his mercy he may preserve the same, and dilate its pale, that his name may be glorified by all nations, and by all hearts, to the boundaries of the earth, for his divine honour and the salvation of souls, framed to his divine image, and the price of his adorable blood. The church of Christ is his spiritual kingdom: he is not only the architect and founder; but continues to govern it, and by his spirit, to animate its members to the end of the world as its invisible head: though he has left in St. Peter and his successors a vicar, or lieutenant, as a visible head, with an established hierarchy for its exterior government. If we love him and desire his honour, if we love men on so many titles linked with us, can we cease weeping and praying, that by his sweet omnipotent grace he may subdue all the enemies of his church, converting to it all infidels and apostates? In its very bosom sinners fight against him. Though these continue his members by faith, they are dead members, because he lives not in them by his grace and charity, reigns not in their hearts, animates them not with his spirit. He will indeed always live by grace and sanctity in many members of his mystical body. Let us pray that by the destruction of the tyranny of sin all souls may subject themselves to the reign of his holy love. Good Jesus! for your mercy’s sake, hear me in this above all other petitions: never suffer me to be separated from you by forfeiting your holy love: may I remain always rooted and grounded in your charity, as is the will of your Father. Eph. iii.
Before we get any funny comments to the effect of “you can’t weaken zero credibility” or the like, let me explain. The USCCB has made some small strides in recent decades to regain its voice on the important moral issues facing the country. The Conference has elected more orthodox bishops to some important positions, for one. And an increasing number, though still a minority, of U.S. bishops have stood strong in matters like pro-life issues, the preservation of Catholic identity in a pluralistic society, and the sanctity of marriage.
Of course, the USCCB bureaucracy, even in the absence of competing statements from less orthodox bishops, does its best to weaken, confuse, and make impotent any statement from the conference that doesn’t toe the socialist-leftist line. But, like I said, there is some progress.
Which leads me to this story. Though the
new ice age, er, global warming, er, “climate change” scam has long ago been discovered and rejected by scientists not on the government dole, and most normal people to boot, the USCCB has seen fit to revise and restate its support for destroying the middle class, trampling private property rights and otherwise making an offering to the Moloch of the State by standing by the party line on this made-up problem.
“Protecting God’s Creation and ‘the least of these’ requires urgent, wise and bold action,” according to the policy statement. “Well-designed climate change policies can both help address climate change and protect the most vulnerable. Most comprehensive policy and legislative approaches to address climate change would generate substantial revenue by putting a price on carbon emissions. The United States bishops insist that a significant portion of these resources be used to minimize the disproportionate burdens felt by those least able to cope with the impacts of climate change and policies to address it.”
This kind of nonsense can get very discouraging to a Catholic who loves the Church and is trying to make it to Heaven. Doctrine is ignored by the sheep in part because there is no attempt to teach it, to maintain it or to defend it– or else it is forced to take a backseat to purely political pronouncements.
I was going to chalk this one up as just one more in a long line of disappointing statements, but when I read the comments to the Catholic Culture article it motivated me to post. I post some below, not to agree or disagree with them (though just guess if I do), but to point out how Catholics view the Conference when it wades into waters like these: –I certainly hope the bishops are going to give us an authoritative statement on the correct temperature of the earth, the correct level of activity of the sun, the correct amount of cloud cover, the correct temperature of the oceans. Without their inspired guidance, how will we know how much climate change we should allow? If the bishops are not going to provide this vital information, then I respectfully ask that they attend to their real jobs which have been woefully neglected for 50 years.
–The bishops continue to pontificate (pun intended) on political issues beyond their expertise and the faithful still wait for moral leadership.
–Great! Since we have been saving mucho $$ since we started mitigating CC in 1990, I would suggest people could use part of such savings to help the poor. That would be better than doing a Cain job on CC & its science, & in effect profligately burning one’s money in the front yard & ending up in a place a lot hotter than a globally warmed world for all eternity, no less.
–Ah, yes. The science of the climate change debate is specifically addressed in both Scripture and Tradition. No? Maybe he bishops should worry about appallingly poor catechesis, and those who speak in the name of the Church in their official positions and yet deny Catholic teachings? Just a thought.