Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Sharon Osborne against abortion?
My friend Shayne, who does what I can only call a "News Blog" - I used to call it a wyrd news blog because he does wierd news, often dealing with aberrations in the homosexual subculture - gosh - how oxymoronic is that? Anyway, he finds good "sound bites" of information sometimes - although rarely editorializing the topic.
He currently has a post on Sharon Osborne talking about an abortion she had when she was seventeen. She presents as one surprisingly pro-life. I say suprisingly since she is Ozzie's wife and surely did not come off that way in their reality TV show. Nevertheless, in interviews I found her very genuine and quite level headed. I like her. I like her even more for her candor about her abortion. Let's pray for her.
Check out Shayne's post.
And why are some liberals so subversive?
I found out that some traditionalists are indeed very angry, as well as defensive, and in some cases offensive. I found out so-called liberals are as well. I'm trying to understand why.
Traditionalists have been labeled with all sorts of names, they have been marginalized and ostracised and off-handedly dismissed as fanatics. That is extremely unfair.
Yet, simply because one is a "novus ordo Catholic" that does not mean one is a liberal. Nevertheless, in the post-Vatican II Church there definitely has been quite a lot of subversive behavior going on, while there has been constructed a sort of Berlin-wall against anything traditional. Every one knows this, including myself, although some people do wonder what I see under all of that sand.
Today's first reading made me think about some of our shepherds, such as Archbishop Roach, now deceased, his predecessor, and a couple of other local Bishops from our recent past, such as Bishop Bullock. (He once said he wasn't aware of any homosexual clergy in the archdiocese, that was in the '90's - not 1890's.)
At the beginning of today's first reading for Mass from Ezekiel we hear:
"Thus says the Lord God: Woe to the shepherds of Israel who have been pasturing themselves! Should not shepherds, rather, pasture sheep?"
I think I will lift my head out of the sand and take a look around. I'll keep the mocked and wounded Christ as my light however, realizing it is He both sides sometimes wound. Let us pray for healing of our wounds, and pray that our splintered Church may once again be assembled into that holy cross of Christ.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Bishop Thomas Doran, Rockford, Illinois.
I came across an article written by him and reprinted on New Advent (8/17/06). It is pretty straight forward as well as an insightful take on where our country is headed. It may even be prophetic, if stating what is obvious is considered so. Very few others address the issues he addresses.
Reading the piece, I was reminded of how I used to read the dictionary in grade school, coming upon words that are hardly in general usage any longer. The Bishop employs a couple of these words that skirt the politically correct terms one uses today. Here are two I forgot about:
Buggery - Once a vulgar term for sodomy. (A teacher once told me that when we say "Don't bug me." the term originated from this word. Yeah, so please don't.)
Invert - A term most often found in old psychological textbooks and literature used to denote a homosexual. It means reversing the natural order, more or less.
"Reaping the whirlwind of abortion.
I want to touch on this matter before we get too close to the November madness. As human beings, as citizens of a “first world country,” as Americans, and as Catholics, most importantly, we have to take count of the circumstances in which we live. We know that the only creatures of God that outlast time are those created having intellect and will. All other things, with the passage of time, break up or break down. Many of the issues that confront us are serious, and we know by now that the political parties in our country are at loggerheads as to how to solve them. We know, for instance, that adherents of one political party would place us squarely on the road to suicide as a people.
The seven “sacraments” of their secular culture are abortion, buggery, contraception, divorce, euthanasia, feminism of the radical type, and genetic experimentation and mutilation. These things they unabashedly espouse, profess and promote. Their continuance in public office is a clear and present danger to our survival as a nation.
Since the mid-1940s we have been accustomed to look askance at Germans. They were protagonists of the Second World War and so responsible for fifty million deaths. We say, “How awful,” and yet in our country we have, for the most part, allowed the party of death and the court system it has produced to eliminate, since 1973, upwards of forty million of our fellow citizens without allowing them to see the light of day. They have done their best to make ours a true culture of death. No doubt, we shall soon outstrip the Nazis in doing human beings to death.
How accustomed we have become to the immense loss of life in our wars throughout the world! Those who have killed millions under their mother’s hearts cannot be expected to balk at a mere few thousand killed in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Somalia, in Darfur, in Bosnia, in Madrid, in London, in Baghdad, in Beirut, in Washington, in New York. The violence of abortion coarsens the lives of all of us. Once it was said, “... for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) So we see the rise in the number of predations among youth, even among the youngest, the rise of domestic violence. We speak of road rage as a common thing. It is true what the theologians have said, that sin darkens the intellect, and weakens the will.
Having sown the wind of abortion we now reap the whirlwind. This appears in every quarter of our culture and on every day. And that just from the first of the “sacraments of death” of our secular human culture. The toleration of sexual perversions among inverts, widespread contraception, easy access to “no fault” divorce, the killing of the elderly, radical feminism, embryonic stem cell research — all of these things defile and debase our human nature and our human destiny.
These unholy sacraments of our secular culture are the seeds of the destruction of our nation.Think for yourself: what nation that kills its young, perverts marriage, prevents new life, and destroys the family, kills those deemed useless, makes the war of the sexes into a real war, and manipulates the genetic basis of human nature, can long endure?" [snip]
I like the "big" man.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Pictured; The Execution of Savonarola.
Indeed, his cause for cannonization is currently under study. From Zenit archives, an interview with the Postulator of the cause:
"But is he a Saint? To get more information on the figure of Savonarola, ZENIT interviewed Fr. Innocenzo Venchi, O.P., who is in charge of studying and promoting the cause his beatification.
Fr. Venchi: Savonarola returns to view because we feel the need for precision in historical reality. He was the victim of calumny and was poorly understood. We must illuminate the truth so that the spiritual figure, the virtuous man, the saint emerges. The questions on which we must clearly respond are his obedience to the Pope (Savonarola never disobeyed him), the excommunication and its validity (This is a very controversial question), and his political influence (which was probably the cause of his condemnation to death). On the basis of all the proofs and counterproofs that I have seen, I can affirm that the previous questions can be resolved in a more than sufficient manner.
ZENIT: In the collective imagination, Savonarola is remembered as a fanatic preacher against feminine vanity, a severe moralist who burned Botticelli's paintings simply because nude women appeared in them.
Fr. Venchi: Savonarola was a morally integral person. He was honest and coherent, and his life corresponded to what he preached. He was severe, but we must also consider the reality of the times in which he lived. Faced with rising neopaganism, the decadency of customs in Rome and Florence, it was enough to ask that people follow the Gospel to be branded as severe censors. Savonarola, nonetheless, loved Florence -- you can see this in his preaching; he felt a great tenderness for that city. If you can make the comparison, Savonarola wept over Florence just as Christ wept over Jerusalem. He was rigorous, but at the same time balanced, not fanatic. This is evident in a few of the questions in which he took action. He intervened before the Republic of Lucca to find a reasonable solution on behalf of the Jews. As for women, Savonarola held them in great consideration. In a period when prostitution reigned and women had no self-esteem, he proposed to allow them to participate in the guidance of civil life in the city. He even wrote a book on the life of widows. He showed maternal tenderness for children.
ZENIT: And how do you explain the "House of Vanities" that he organized?
Fr. Venchi: A great deal of uproar has been caused and many falsehoods written about the "House of Vanities" where they burned jewelry and paintings disrespectful of morality, but this had already been put into practice by St. Bernardine of Siena and Blessed Bernardine of Feltre. They were not Savonarola's invention. They say that he didn't like painting because he had Botticelli's paintings with nude women burned, but very few know that Bartholomeo della Porta, Raphael's master, was a disciple and follower of Savonarola. After meeting Savonarola, Br. Bartolomeo began to paint religious themes. It is well known that Michaelangelo admired Savonarola, and it appears that Raphael did as well, since the great painter put him in the "Dispute of the Blessed Sacrament." Another follower of Savonarola was the painter Paolino Detti, better known as Paolino del Signoraccio. So, he had many artists among his followers.
ZENIT: It seems clear that an injustice was committed against Savonarola, but was he really a saint?
Fr. Venchi: The cause was born from the fact that despite the calumnies and condemnations, the cult and veneration of Savonarola has continued across the centuries into our time. Among his admirers we find dozens of saints, such as St. Philip Neri, St. Catherine of Ricci, St. John Fisher, St. Pius V, and St. Pius X. Even in modern times, we find great admirers of Savonarola, such as Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati, Blessed Don Orione, and the Servant of God Giorgio La Pira. In addition, as the investigation has progressed, the more we came to know his writings and historical successes, the more we esteemed Savonarola, even if he will always be a sign of contradiction due to his strongly held positions.
ZENIT: Can someone who criticized the life of the clergy so be beatified?
Fr. Venchi: Important historical studies prove that not only was Savonarola not disobedient, he was neither excommunicated nor insane. Some hold that if Savonarola had been listened to, perhaps there would not have been a Reformation. While at that time no one would raise his voice against the reigning corruption, Savonarola made himself heard, preached against the bad customs, denounced the dissolution of his times, had the courage to speak to the end, was coherent, never gave up, never bent even before the threat of death, and paid with his own life.
ZENIT: Then for you, Savonarola is a saint, with all that that would imply?
Fr. Venchi: The sanctity of Savonarola is shown in the moment of his condemnation, when as a prisoner, he was tortured, humiliated, and made fun of for forty-five days, and then killed and burned. In that difficult moment, he had the strength to write a commentary on the Miserere [Psalm 51], which is one of the most beautiful in the history of the Church. This is the comportment of a saint. In a certain sense, he walked the Passion of Jesus Christ again: he was betrayed, imprisoned, tried, abandoned by all, and stripped of his habit. He suffered all these humiliations without bitterness toward anyone, and never disobeyed the Pope." [snip]
It makes you really wonder about Fr. Altier doesn't it? What if...
I mean, he has preached against the evils of rock music, the vanities of our times, the immorality of television. He says Harry Potter is wicked. He talks about the end of the age, the corruption in the Church. He spoke out against the "VIRTUS" sex-ed program for Catholic schools. He is no fan of contemporary immodest fashions. He has said a lot of things that kinda, sorta sound like Savonarola. I know some people who are devoted to him who even have had book burnings - I don't know if Father condoned that however - I'm sure he would see no harm in it. Oh well, at least we don't imprison or burn people at the stake any longer.
(I couldn't sleep so I thought I'd post this as a follow up to my other post on Savonarola - after rumaging around the net looking for his meditations on the Miserere.)
I hate to quote from G.K. because it seems everyone else always does. I like reading him however. Although I don't want to belong to any Chesterton society. I love Carmelite spirituality yet I would never want to be a Third Order Carmelite. I love Opus Dei and their spirituality as well, but I would never want to be a member. I just don't join things. (I have joined a parish however, mainly because I want someplace to be buried from. It's safe to say no one will be there.)
But here are some quotes I like from the Fat Man:
"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes being corrected."
(It seems to me that same thought could be stated substituting the labels, Traditionalists and Liberals.)
"If men cannot save themselves from common sense, they cannot save each other by coercion."
(That makes sense, huh?)
"If the world grows too worldly, it can be rebuked by the Church; but if the Church grows too worldly, it cannot be adequately rebuked for worldliness by the world."
(Maybe this is what is occurring in our midst. Are the Trads rebuking the worldly Church? Maybe the followers of priests such as Fr. Altier are doing likewise. If this is the case, who gives them the authority to do so? Another blogger I know enjoys quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, (Obviously the basis for this statement by Chesterton.) here is that blogger's favorite maxim: "It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.")
"I am not urging a lop-sided idolatry of the past; I am protesting against a lop sided idolatry of the present." (It's kind of a seesaw thing isn't it?)
(I like the Fat Man.)