Six Months Ago Today, the U.S. Cardinals Issued a Statement

Frankly, I wonder if I am the only person on the Earth who remembers.

And I wonder, especially, if the cardinals remember.

This past Sunday, Amy Welborn posted a fascinating blog in response to the letter from Detroit's Gang of Four: This just might be the test we’ve been waiting for.

One of her readers asked what "test" she was talking about, and she replied, Monday: "Well, it's simple really — the test as to whether the American Catholic hierarchy means anything it says." After further explanation, she concluded:

.... We all know what would happen to a Catholic pastor who might support a candidate with racist, sexist or otherwise retrograde views. It just wouldn't be allowed, and any bishop, from Bruskewitz to Mahony, would step in and shut him up and use the opportunity to clarify the nature of Catholic teaching.

The test is — does this same standard to priests who say supporting the legally-sanctioned slaughter of the unborn is consistent with Catholic tradition and really folks, no big deal, cuz Jen Granholm is such a woman of conscience?

Six months ago, in response to the U.S. Cardinal's Statement (second item on page), I also noted that a test was being undertaken.

Specifically, I took up one facet of "certain basic principles" which the cardinals reaffirmed "in communion with the pope":

5) Given the doctrinal issues underlying the deplorable behavior in question, certain lines of response have been proposed: a) the pastors of the Church need clearly to promote the correct moral teaching of the Church and publicly to reprimand individuals who spread dissent and groups which advance ambiguous approaches to pastoral care....

Allow me to conclude this blog with a lengthy quotation from my column of April 29 — and with a reminder that the archbishop of Detroit, Adam Cardinal Maida, in particular, is indeed one of the cardinals in whose name the statement was issued, April 24.

Some Tests for the American Bishops:
How the Laity Can Score Them

Talking is all we got, so far. The bishops will have to show us that they can “walk the walk” as well as “talk the talk” — assuming some of them can manage to continue to do even that. Honesty and courage in action: they will be required, every day, every step of the way. Every national meeting, every diocesan meeting, every press conference and pastoral letter, will require honesty and, perhaps as never before in the USA, courage in action. Those who are falsely called “dissenters” — who are, in reality, quite happy assenters to any and every doctrine at odds with the Catholic faith — will scream in fury if the bishops actually take the steps necessary to regain their “moral authority” and restore the integrity of Catholic faith and life in the USA. And every syllable of every furious scream will be faithfully reported in a mainstream media that hates authentic Catholicism as much as “dissenters” do.

The next year will show us what future the bishops of the USA really have planned for Catholics in America. During and after the bishops’s semi-annual meeting in June, mainstream media, and perhaps the bishops in response, will want to talk only about what policy will be put into place to deal with “pedophile priests”. That will be, as logicians might say, necessary but insufficient.

We have the cardinals’ own words to show us how to judge the bishops’ response: “The pastors of the Church need clearly to promote the correct moral teaching of the Church and publicly to reprimand individuals who spread dissent and groups which advance ambiguous approaches to pastoral care.”

• How many theologians, who promote error if not outright heresy, will be publicly reprimanded in the next year? (Will the famous on-TV-a-lot-these-days Fr. Richard McBrien, a theologian at Notre Dame, be among them?)
• How many bishops will be publicly reprimanded in the next year for giving encouragement and support to homosexual behaviors that the Catholic Church condemns as sinful? (Will Thomas Gumbleton, auxiliary bishop of Detroit, be among them?)
• How many groups will be publicly reprimanded in the next year for the same reason? Or for some other reason connected with Catholic moral teaching on, say, pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, divorce and remarriage, abortion, or artificial contraception. (Will Dignity, an organization of homosexual activists, be among them?)
• And how many of these reprimands, of whatever kind they may be, will actually contribute to clearly promoting the correct moral teaching of the Catholic Church?

I submit that, if the answers tally up to zero — as I suspect they will — we shall know that the U.S. Cardinals’ Statement was merely words.

Lest We Forget

“The pastors of the Church need clearly to promote the correct moral teaching of the Church and publicly to reprimand individuals who spread dissent and groups which advance ambiguous approaches to pastoral care.” (U.S. Cardinals, April 24, 2002)

(See also Four Subversive Traitors Step Into the Spotlight, More on Four Subversive Traitors in Detroit, and An Action Plan for Dealing with the Gang of Four.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 10/24/02 09:49:29 PM
Categorized as Religious.

Disturber of the Peace Institute

From The Curmudgeon.

I should have done more to call your attention to the young weblog of the Disturber of the Peace Institute, which is a familiar place to any denizen of Steve Ray's CCMB. Beware: he has quite the sarcastic sense of humor. (So do I.) And I'm sure he's already learned what one of my English professors once told me: "Sarcasm is lost on the masses". :)

His blog today on the pope's recent suggested changes to the Rosary makes the following very astute point:

.... The “cause” of the Pope’s decision, according to the writer? Why, none other than that Great Evil Boogeyman, ecumenism: “…If you're thinking you smell a bit of ‘ecumania’ here, you're exactly right. It's no coincidence that the less Scriptural [Stations of the Cross, and entirely separate Catholic devotion –TC] were replaced [by the Pope privately] with events recorded in the Gospels (The Agony in the Garden, The Betrayal, Peter's Denial, The Good Thief, and Mary and John at the Foot of the Cross), so that our Protestant brethren might feel a bit more at home participating in this Catholic devotion.”

But never mind that unlike the Stations of the Cross, the REAL barrier for Protestants to pray the Rosary were NOT the traditional 15 Mysteries at all (with the possible exception of the 4th and 5th Glorious Mysteries, which focus on the Blessed Virgin Mary), but the 53 “Hail Mary” prayers recited in the Rosary – not to mention the repetitious nature of the Rosary itself, which many Protestants regard as “unbiblical.” ....

Too true. Regarding the "repetitious" nature of the prayers, I don't think anybody has written a better, briefer explanation than Peggy Noonan:

.... The point and purpose of the rosary, however, is not to recite rote prayers but to repeat prayers you know by heart as you contemplate -- actively meditate on -- a mystery of Christianity....

P.S. I thank him for his gracious update to the blog to which I referred earlier today.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 10/24/02 06:01:52 PM
Categorized as Religious.

An Action Plan for Dealing with the Gang of Four

Blogged by Greg Popcak at Heart, Mind and Strength today:

Michael Trueman is the Promoter for Justice in the Archdiocese of Detroit. I understand he regularly "attends" St. Blog's.

It has been suggested to me that the more complaints about the "Detroit Four" we get to Mr. Trueman, the more likely it is that the priests who recently wrote an editorial muddying the waters on the Catholic teaching on abortion in the Detroit Free Press will be required to face some canonical consequences of their actions.

The Archdiocesan Office of Judicial Office informed me that Michael Trueman is out of the office until Monday at the Canadian Canon Law Conference. However, I urge you to call and leave a message for him by calling 313-237-5865. Leave a message and ask, "What canonical steps will be taken to address the gross and public dissent expressed by the Detroit Four in violation of Canon 1369?"

Call early, call often,

And Michael, if you're reading this, an email would be appreciated.

UPDATE: I have information that tells me that the priests violated Canon 1369 which calls for "just punishments" for priests who publicly proclaim teaching that is harmful to public morals and causes public scandal. Just punishments are left to the discretion of the local ordinary, and may include, public apology, the requirement to take a course in moral theology, community service to correct the offence and the like. Call today to insist that swift and just action be taken.

Exercise your canonical right as a Catholic to demand justice. Call Michael Trueman 313-237-5865 now. Tell him Heart Mind and Strength Radio sent you.

It should be noted that one of the four (Dr. Anthony Kosnik, Professor Emeritus, Ethics, Ecumenical Theological Seminary Detroit) is said to have been laicized and married. I think it is rather clear from the article's conclusion that he is not a priest, or is not now an active priest, but the headline is somewhat ambiguous and tends to suggest otherwise: Priests defend Granholm.

P.S. "Trueman"? "Trueman"! What a great surname.

(Thanks Mark.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 10/24/02 02:19:35 PM
Categorized as Religious.

"Let's Hope, More Solemnly and Seriously, That it is Over."

A reader writes:

Shock, utter & total disbelief, incredulity illimitable, that the Beltway & Vicinity Sniper had a "Muhammad" attached to his name.

And color me scandalized that anyone could express a scintilla of dubiety, an iota of doubt, about Islam being a religion of peace.

Granted, it's not quite as peaceful as the True Religion of Peace (La Cosa Nostra) but nobody's perfect.

And as to the other point, we could fill a 600-page ledger with the black-on-white hate-crimes of the last 15 years that haven't been labelled as such. Give this current rascal "credit" for seeming to be insouciant of the race of his victims.

Let's hope, more solemnly & seriously, that it is over.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 10/24/02 01:43:50 PM
Categorized as Social/Cultural.

Why I Made Sure I Called The Accused Villains "Black"

It was my way of tweaking all the politically-correct media outlets who are very eager to announce the race of white evil-doers, but go out of their way to avoid identifying anybody's race when (1) the evil-doer is not white and/or (2) the victim(s) are white.

(This is why I have added a link on the Front Page of The View to the Wichita Eagle's coverage of Jonathan & Reginald Carr on Trial — the trial of two black men accused of robbing, kidnapping, sexually abusing, and killing white men and women in December 2000: this is a horrible crime that is horribly "politically incorrect", and mainstream media is doing its best to ignore it all. Why do I say that? Because I think if it were the trial of two white men accused of robbing, kidnapping, sexually abusing, and killing black men and women, we would hear no end of it. Do Dan and Tom and Peter even mention the Carr brothers' trial? Or the crimes they are accused of? I don't know the answer to those questions, because I don't watch any of them anymore.)

Moreover, it was definitely my impression that most "experts" and "profilers" took it for granted that the sniper was a White Guy and a "Loser". Maybe my impression is mistaken: I can't watch/listen to/read everything. But that is my impression.

What's more, I think it is just as significant that "experts", "profilers" and mainstream media downplayed the possibility of this being a terroristic act. I originally thought of referring to them as "Two Black Terrorists", but I thought that was going a bit further than current knowledge warrants.

I really couldn't care less what race the villains belong to, in any particular case. What I care about is how mainstream media crafts and filters the news to emphasize white-on-black crime and to downplay or ignore crimes committed by minorities. I am sorry if I gave anybody a different impression.

On the other hand, I care very much what religion the villains belong to — if and only if they are Muslims who think that violence against innocent, unsuspecting civilians is a tactic to be employed to further their ends, whatever those ends might be. (All the media today are awash with reports that Muhammed is a Muslim convert who thought the Massacre of September 11 was a neato thing.) If the villain is some other kind of Muslim, I don't care about that, either.

Re: EQUAL OPPORTUNITY SNIPERS: Is Race Really An Issue???

P.S. Any web search for "Jamaat al-Fuqra" will turn up stories at respectable news sites saying that Pakistani officials thought some of those involved with the Daniel Pearl incident were also involved with Jamaat al-Fuqra. As I mentioned in the update to the previous blog, I was mistaken to refer to it as a Black Muslim organization, a mistake I did not fully rectify. From what I can tell, however, it would be correct to say that it's a Muslim group active in black communities in this country. Or, to be more exact, that is reported as such.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 10/24/02 01:25:33 PM
Categorized as Media.

Two Black Men Arrested in the Beltway Sniper Case

Is a Muslim group called Jamaat al-Fuqra involved?

Let's hope it's really over. John Allen Muhammed (a.k.a. John Williams) and his reputed stepson Lee Malvo have been arrested.

Gee. Who'da thunk it? After all, a White Guy Loser was supposed to be the Number One suspect. And a terrorist was just out of the question.

Call me Mr. Cynic, but when I heard the news, the first thought that came to mind was I wonder how many paragraphs into their lead story it will be until the New York Times identifies the race of the individuals arrested. (I haven't looked yet, and I'm not even sure I will.)

A tipster to a local radio program this morning claims the government is investigating the involvement of a [Black] Muslim group called Jamaat al-Fuqra, members of which may have been involved in the kidnapping and murder of journalist Daniel Pearl.

P.S. Remember, a few years back, two black men robbed, kidnapped, and murdered two white students of Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio? It was a regional story, so it was big news here. A caller to the same local radio program said he figured out the race of the individuals involved (black criminals, white victims) without hearing anything about their race. How? The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published its first story on the crime without mentioning anybody's race!

P.P.S. I hear that the terrorists who have taken 700 hostages in a theatre in Russia have allowed the Muslims among their hostages to leave. Gee. What do you suppose that means? That the terrorists are... Swedish evangelical Christians of Jewish ancestry? Naaaaaahhhhhh.........

Update: you may notice that I have placed "Black" in strike-out and brackets before "Muslim" in one place above. I had originally had "Black Muslim" in both places where the word "Muslim" (singular) appears. I decided that it was incorrect, fixed it in the subtitle, but forgot to fix it in the text.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 10/24/02 08:10:30 AM
Categorized as Media.