Pope Benedict to canonize seven saints next October

Cardinal Edward Egan, the Emeritus Archbishop of New York, could not keep a smile off his face as he stood in the sun outside of St. Peter’s after the consistory. He eagerly pointed out that “out of the seven saints, two are New Yorkers.
…
Someone asked me last night whether New York was a secular city? I said it was the most religious city in the world, and if you have any doubt, two out of seven isn’t bad for any state!” he told CNA.

Pretty cool. Although, isn’t it funny how people from NYC mix and match the word “New York” to apply either to the city or the state as they please? Meanwhile those of us who don’t live in the city must be sure to always emphasize State when we say “New York State” so as not to confuse others into thinking that we’re referring to the city. In the case of these Saints, I hereby officially claim them as Upstaters! That makes the grand total:

Upstate: 2
NYC: 0

While we’re at it, I thought these posters going around facebook were funny:

and one more:

photo credit:77krc (flickr)
photo credit: billsoPHOTO (flickr)

It would be interesting to find out, if it were able ever to do so, how many Letters of laity to the “Catholic Courier” attempting to defend the doctrines and discipline of the Church were never printed!

Note: I see that in the year 2012 Fr. Richard P. McBrien remains a favorite columnist in the “Catholic Courier” of the Diocese of Rochester. It is really incredible that a priest who continually writes to contradict Magisterial teaching remains without protest or contradiction by the Bishop of the diocese. Other bishops have acted to remove his column from their newspapers and rightfully so. This 2003 Letter sent to the “Catholic Courier” of the Diocese of Rochester was not printed but remains relevant since Fr. McBrien has never retracted his false teaching that since Vatican II Catholics no longer believe the Catholic Church was the true Church of Jesus Christ.
-James Likoudis

June 12, 2003

Letter to the Editor
Catholic Courier
P.O.Box 24379
Rochester, NY 14624

Dear Editor,

In his Catholic Courier column (6/12/03) Fr. Richard P. McBrien once again urges dismissal of the Catholic Church’s discipline of mandated celibacy for priests of the Latin rite. It is clear that he is an apologist for rejecting its maintenance as “a possible solution” for the shortage of priestly vocations. “The rule of celibacy”, he sneers, “is regarded, at least implicitly, as more important than making the Eucharist available to every Catholic”. While ostensibly praising Pope John Paul II’s new Encyclical “Ecclesia de Eucharistia”, he ignores everything the same Pope has written in praise of and defense of the Church’s present discipline on priestly celibacy which is of apostolic origin. “The lack of priests”, the Pontiff noted, “is certainly a sadness for any local Church”, but to be utterly rejected is “the framework of systematic propaganda which is hostile to celibacy. Such propaganda finds support and complicity in some of the mass media.” The shortage of priests that has afflicted the Church in the post-conciliar period, he pointed out, “was based on an erroneous understanding of- and sometimes even conscious bias against- the doctrine of the Conciliar Magisterium. Herein lies undoubtedly one of the reasons for the great number of defections experienced then by the Church, losses which did serious harm to pastoral ministry and priestly vocations, especially missionary vocations.” (Address 11/5/90) It is ironic that writers like Fr. McBrien who presume to speak for “the spirit of Vatican II” are at complete odds with the actual teaching of the Popes and the most recent Ecumenical Council supporting mandated priestly celibacy for priests of the Western Church (See Vatican II’s “Life of Priests”, 16)

Fr. McBrien is indeed a “professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame”, but, interestingly, has not received or even requested a “mandatum” from his bishop to be regarded as an authentic theologian. Moreover, the very concept of the Church presented in this same column is not faithful to Catholic doctrine. Non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities may indeed possess a “certain, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church”, as Vatican II declared. But, contrary to Fr. McBrien’s erroneous view, such dissident Churches and ecclesial communities cannot be said to be “within the Body of Christ” in such manner that the visible unity of Christ’s one and only Church (which is His Mystical Body) is lost sight of. One of McBrien’s favorite (and false) ideas is that the whole Body of Christ and not the Catholic Church alone is the one true Church of Jesus Christ. But then McBrien’s theology in many respects is not faithful to Catholic doctrine and the Magisterium. The U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine noted exactly that when in April 1996 it censured McBrien’s major work “Catholicism” which he never bothered to revise as requested.

Sincerely yours,
James Likoudis

President Obama versus religious liberty

On January 20, 2012, the Obama administration affirmed a rule that would force Roman Catholic hospitals, charities, and universities to purchase health insurance for their employees that includes coverage for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, in violation of their religious principles. This is wrong.

As you can see Romney was quite critical of the recent Obama/HHS decision and appeared to be a strong supporter of religious liberty. However, if you look at his record and not just his expedient commentary, you’ll find a slightly different picture.

Romney: Flip-Flopping on Contraception?

This story is a little more complex than the current issue with Obamacare, so you’ll want to read the whole story to truly understand all the nuances, but here’s the gist.

…
Romney said, “My own view is that every hospital should provide to rape victims information about emergency contraception, or emergency contraception itself.”
…
“Romney reversed course on the state’s new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims,” reported the Boston Globe on December 9.
…
“They’ve taken the position now that the preexisting statute somehow does not shield Catholic and other private hospitals from this new mandate,” Avila told the Pilot, a Boston Catholic newspaper.
…
C. J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts… was displeased by his decision to heed his lawyers’ advice and nullify the older conscience statute. “It was Governor Romney who effectively pulled the rug out from under Catholic hospitals by coming up with this rather novel, unheard-of interpretation of this pre-existing statute,” he says.

As I mentioned, this story is nuanced. So it’s only fair to provide these words as well.

Anne Fox, president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, reflects on the incident with more sympathy for Romney. “His lawyers came in and said, ‘This is the way it has to be,’” she says of the December 2005 incident. “I’m not sure how many people would have said, ‘Well, I don’t care.’ I don’t know what else he might have done.”

Just something to be aware of. If you’re looking for someone to staunchly defend religious liberty, Romney might not be your guy.

Now, as we move to implement this rule, however, we’ve been mindful that there’s another principle at stake here –- and that’s the principle of religious liberty, an inalienable right that is enshrined in our Constitution. As a citizen and as a Christian, I cherish this right.
…
The right to religious liberty will be fully protected,

Sounds pretty decent, right? Except that it is a lie. What exactly is the “accommodation” that President Obama has made? Get this – contraception will be provided for “free” by the insurers. Of course, the free contraception (and other abortifacients) are not free to all – only those people who are in the plan. So, if you, as an employer, buy the plan for your employees then they receive the “free” contraception. If you don’t buy the plan they don’t receive the free contraception. But don’t worry, you aren’t actually paying for that part of the plan. Got that? I didn’t think so.

The White House’s email finishes with 4 endorsements – two from the “Catholic” side (Catholics United and the Catholic Health Association) and two from the culture of death side (NARAL and Planned Parenthood) which is supposed to demonstrate the goodness of the great compromiser. Well, Mr President, I’ve got some better names to share with you from the Catholic side. Former Vatican Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon, Princeton Prof. Robert George, Notre Dame Law Prof. Carter Snead, Catholic University of America President John Garvey, and EPPC Fellow Yuval Levin issued the following response:

It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage. For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers. More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual. They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.

Other responses (shamelessly stolen from Fr Z’s site):

Bishop Tobin of Rhode Island:

“At first reading, the so-called “accommodation” offered by the Obama Administration seems to fall short of the requirements of the moral law,” said Bishop Tobin. “Although the discussions about this matter will continue, the bottom line is this: the government cannot require religious institutions or individuals to operate in a way that violates their convictions. Our nation cherishes religious freedom. By what authority does the President of the United States seek to impose this immoral policy? This is the United States, not North Korea.”

Bishop Zubiek of Pittsburgh (video) calls Obama’s accommodations “smoke and mirrors”.

Note: People cannot seem to get this story right. John Delano, the reporter in the above video, posed the dilemma this way:
1) Is a woman entitled to birth control no matter where she works
or
2) can religious institutions … deny their employees access.

You, John, and most of America are completely fumbling this story! Apparently professional newspeople are using this opportunity to prove that bloggers who work for free are actually more qualified at reporting news than they are.  No employer is attempting to deny women access to birth control here. Let me rephrase this dilemma for you:

1) gov’t can force employers to buy any products or services for their employees the gov’t says they must
or
2) employers are free to choose to offer whatever benefits they wish to their employees

Which one is freedom and which one is tyranny? It’s amazing how many people have this story completely backward. The MSM is doing their best to add to the confusion.

And here’s Jimmy Akin’s response: Don’t Be Deceived! Evil Obama Policy Now Even MORE Evil!

http://www.mprp-roc.org/mprp01-12February.html

By now everyone’s probably seen the nonsensical youtube video entitled, “Why I hate religion, but love Jesus.” The content of the video is even sillier than the title suggests. I’m not going to embed the video here or link to it. I’ll be honest – I haven’t even watched it, although I’ve read the poem line-by-line in some critiques. Quite honestly, I think this video provides a good teaching moment for Catholics and Protestants alike. It shows just how silly certain movements like the Emerging Church movement are. If you’re at least a partially educated Catholic, I think this video is almost harmless because the claims are so egregious and contrary to both reality and scripture. However, we should not presume that all DOR parishioners would have enough knowledge to realize just how harmful and dangerous such ideas are. If you’re going to discuss the issue, it should be done carefully. Certainly a good principle when discussing differing points of view is to emphasize what you agree upon. However, this should never be done without also clearly distinguishing major points of disagreement lest anyone make the mistake of thinking you agree on or concede certain points. One of the major shockers for me as a protestant convert to Catholicism has been the protestantization of the local Catholic Church. With that said, I offer for your reading pleasure 3 rebuttals of this video. You decide for yourselves which of these would challenge a non-Catholic to consider Catholicism (or a Catholic to stand even more firm in their faith).

Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus — The Smackdown – Marc Barnes – Bad Catholic
Why I Hate People Hating on Religion – Jimmy Akin
Jesus and Religion – Rev. Peter Clifford – St. John of Rochester parish – Perinton, NY (included below)

JESUS AND RELIGION
Parents of teens and otherwise media aware folks may be familiar with a recent video on YouTube that has had nearly 14 million views in just over two weeks. Jefferson Bethke has grabbed the attention of many with his views on Jesus and His relationship to religion. In part the attraction of this piece is its attractive and professional appearance. More however is the theme of being drawn to Jesus and a relationship with Jesus while being turned off by religion and persons who make religious claims. Mr. Bethke has some good and cogent points which makes his piece even more alluring. He starts right off decrying the many wars that religion has sponsored past and present. He identifies the hypocrisy of religious institutions and religious people judging persons thought to be sinners while being sinners themselves. Jesus obviously made the same condemnation in His day. Mr. Bethke later in the piece confesses that he was similarly caught himself saying that going to church can be like putting on the jersey of your favorite sports team. You show your loyalty for the team but no way could you wear that jersey onto the field or court of play. It is all for show. He says of himself, he acted like a church kid on Sunday, while on Saturday he had been caught up in sin.

Somewhere along the way, he heard the Gospel. Mr. Bethke says midway through the video, that he has come to faith through the Grace of Jesus and found forgiveness for his sins. That conversion moment changed him, he seems to say. He says at that point that if anything, church should be a “hospital for the broken, not a museum for the good.”

Both here and at the start, I found myself in agreement with Mr. Bethke. The church, whether ours or other religious institutions presently and throughout history, have given plenty of ammunition to critics like him. The present abuse scandal that has rocked the Catholic church is only the most recent instance of our flawed and fallen humanity tarnishing, spoiling and threatening to destroy faith in Jesus. That is true and is all part of that hospital for the broken image that Mr. Bethke uses. If church is not such a place, then it is not what Jesus meant it to be. To the extent that we put people off or send them away empty handed and angry for our rejection, we have sinned yet again. However, today’s readings underscore Jesus’ intention to gather people around him. Again today, as last Sunday, the text recounts calling disciples. They will in turn call others and from such gathering, the church is founded. From such calls of Jesus for followers have come good, grace, and blessings beyond counting through history. The poor fed, naked clothed, homeless sheltered and more because folks like you and I heard a call and followed and still do today. Thank God for that, because believers are the ones who preach that Gospel of Grace that Mr. Bethke heard and by that was saved. True, we are broken. But together we are on a search for God and Jesus in our lives. As I said at the end of the homily two weeks ago, Jesus is at the same time on a search for us too. For many, the meeting place is church. That is the community of disciples we gather with in common faith and seek to live the Gospel with. For where two or three gather in My name, Jesus said, there I am in their midst.

Alright, I’ll go a little beyond allowing you to decide for yourselves and offer my opinion.  The above article from Fr. Clifford gives too many concessions to the dangerous video and falls short of offering a serious rebuttal.  I’ll give Fr. Clifford credit for tackling the subject and addressing the modern world, but I wish he were more put off by the video and offered some more substantive argumentation against it.  Yes, I understand it’s a bulletin with limited space, but that’s what footnotes are for.  With every passing year, it’s become more and more evident that there has been a serious lack of catechesis in the Catholic Church over the last few decades and is why so many Catholics fall prey to either Protestant denominations or the temptations of the secular world.  I’d suggest that priests try offering a little more meat.  Roll your sleeves up a little bit and don’t be afraid to go to battle for you faith.  People won’t be turned off – they will be drawn to the truth.  Afraid of being seen as negative?  Just look at how many people flocked to Bethke’s video which was basically a hate speech.  If you have friends or family that go to St. John of Rochester, you might wish to pass Jimmy Akin’s article along lest they be tempted to be think Catholics don’t have a better answer to Bethke’s attack.

(I’ve seen lots of links to video responses as well. I’m not as much into watching videos as I am into reading, but feel free to leave links to those videos or other critiques in the comments)

I’m wondering if someone could help me find the checkbox for “No, thank you. I do not wish to receive the Catholic Courier and I would prefer my parish keep the $20″. Can you help me find it? Or perhaps you have a caption of your own you’d like to share.

UPDATE: The missing fact that makes this interesting (and which I failed to mention initially) is that if you don’t pay your bill for the lapdog, dissenting, divisive newspaper which you never signed up for, then the DOR takes it from your parish anyway. At least that’s how it was 5 years ago, so I’m assuming it still is.

DISCLAIMER: Certainly there are individuals who do noble work for the Courier. My disdain for the Courier is the general lack of balance in regard to reporting local stories as well as giving voice to national columnists who grossly misrepresent Catholicism and who are thinly veiled voices for progressive politics.

http://www.mprp-roc.org/mprp01-12January.html