For closure at this time

March 26, 2010

The reason I have this blog is to ensure having a voice in commenting about people, places, and events in the Church – and to do so without having to be at the mercy of someone else’s “delete” key.   This isn’t exactly the third article I’d planned, but it will do for closure in response to the discussion about Zmirak’s article elsewhere in the blogosphere. 

The (second) title of my response to Zmirak’s original article suggests that he should re-read John 17 where Jesus speaks of unity.  My concern is that of schism – not between dissidents and orthodox, which seems very likely – but between orthodox Catholics and orthodox Catholics.

Since then, I was surprised by someone’s comment that he was glad for the discussion about the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of Mass. For his sake – and he was very polite about it- I’m glad there is the discussion. However, others have not been as polite and it would be nice if they could have a discussion without taking potshots at fellow Catholics.  That was essentially the basis for my initial title about divisiveness.

The only thing that off the top of my head I’d change from my original response would be the examples given in the externals section. It occurred to me that the examples I gave were not externals of the Mass.  I have a fairly broad experience of the Mass: I (vaguely) remember Latin on one side and English on the other when young in what is now know as the Extraordinary Form; currently attend the Ordinary form (my preference); and spent the better part of a year where Sunday liturgy alternated so that every other week was in the Melkite rite (lots of externals).  While there are many outward differences, intrinsically I see no difference.  I’m appalled that Catholics a) look down on fellow Catholics as “merely” orthodox and b) are at odds with each other over this when there’s so much that legitimately needs to be fought.

What else in addition to my initial response?  There was the suggestion that perhaps Hoopes “misread” Zmirak’s:  Go back to Hell. …. Perhaps it’s not Hoopes who misread,  but that Zmirak was unnecessarily inflammatory. 

Nor did Zmirak explain himself. Indeed, no explanation is sufficient for saying on whatever level that the Mass that has sustained so many (and despite the sneering at the Novus Ordo, it has indeed spiritually sustained many) should “go back to Hell.”  The statement is arrogant, insulting, and unacceptable.  There’s enough fighting to do “out there” – there’s no need for “friendly fire.”

Advertisements

Annunciation – Fiat – Yes

March 25, 2010

On this Solemnity of the Annunciation, here is a reflection on Mary’s fiat written by Fr. David May of Madonna House.


Easter Egg Roll – Not Access for All

March 24, 2010

Free tickets to the traditional White House Easter Egg Roll will be available only to public and charter schools but not private or parochial schools.  Explain that to your child.

This follows on the heels on cutting the voucher program in DC.

Of course, the Obama girls who attend a private school will probably be there.


“Ave Maria” Banned

March 22, 2010

That’s the starting point of this story.  For her high school 2006 graduation in Everett, WA, Kathryn Nurre wanted to play an instrumental version – an instrumental version, mind you – of Ave Maria but the school wouldn’t let her.  Nurre sued. Given this is the Ninth Circuit Court, it’s no surprise that it went all the way up to the Supreme Court.  The reason the story is in today’s news is that the Supreme Court declined to hear it.  On a minority note, Judge Alito (God bless him) said he would have heard it.

Oh, c’mon.  “Ave Maria”?  Besides the inane inability to tolerate even an instrumental musical piece because of the … no, don’t say it… (covering ears)… Arrrgghhhhh! … mention of a person known in a religious context,  Schubert and Grounod’s arrangements of “Ave Maria”  are pieces of classical music.  Not only does it have nothing to do with the establishment clause, but the school and judges, by saying it was not allowed, went much further down the establishment path than the student who simply wanted to play her choice of  music.

The Seattle Times and MSNBC are news sources.

The Northwest Education Law Blog will probably have the story longer.


For Future Reference

March 22, 2010

The March 21 damage:

Jill Stanek has a listing of “pro-life Democrats” who voted in favor of “this flawed bill.”

The full final role count vote is here.

A high point as counterbalance:

John Boehner saying what so many were thinking.

Looking forward:

NRO has an interview with Paul Ryan on how he sees this playing out.

Michelle Malkin writes about the coming lawsuits.

Priests for Life will be having a conference call on Wednesday, March 24, from 9pm to 10pm EDT.


Quote of the Day

March 21, 2010

“The only thing bipartisan about this bill is the opposition.”

I think several people said it; I’ll have to check tomorrow for attribution.


Stupak Stripped of “Defender of Life” Award

March 21, 2010

A paste from the Susan B. Anthony List applying consequences to Stupak’s decision.

March 21, 2010

Stupak Stripped of “Defender of Life” Award

Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund Pledges to Drive Out Pro-life Betrayers in November

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to Rep. Bart Stupak’s announcement that he and other self-labeled “pro-life” Democrats will vote in favor of Healthcare reform legislation with the addition of an Executive Order from the White House to address concerns about abortion funding, Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:

“This Wednesday night is our third annual Campaign for Life Gala, where we were planning to honor Congressman Stupak for his efforts to keep abortion-funding out of health care reform-We will no longer be doing so. By accepting this deal from the most pro-abortion President in American history, Stupak has not only failed to stand strong for unborn children, but also for his constituents and pro-life voters across the country.”

“Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this healthcare bill can no longer call themselves ‘pro-life.’ The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund will not endorse, or support in any capacity, any Member of Congress who votes for this bill in any future election. Now through Election Day 2010, these representatives will learn that votes have consequences. The SBA List Candidate Fund will work tirelessly to help defeat Members who support this legislation and make sure their constituents know exactly how they voted. We will actively seek out true pro-life candidates to oppose Members who vote ‘yes’ on this bill, whether it be in general or primary elections. For these Members, it will be a quick downhill slide to defeat in November.”

“The executive order on abortion funding does absolutely nothing to fix the problems presented by the health care reform bill that the House will vote on this evening. The very idea should offend all pro-life Members of Congress.  An executive order can be rescinded at any time at the President’s whim, and the courts could and have a history of trumping executive orders. Most importantly, pro-abortion Representatives have admitted the executive order is meaningless.”

Last night, Rep. DeGette told The Huffington Post, “If there was an executive order saying they weren’t going to use federal funds in the bill to pay for abortions that would be fine with me.”

Today, Rep. Wasserman Schultz admitted to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly that “an executive order cannot change the law.”

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops pointed out today that “only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation.”

The Susan B. Anthony List has been leading the fight against abortion funding in health care reform for over a year, spending nearly $2 million on a grassroots campaign of targeted television and radio ads, 1.3 million automated calls, 70,000 patch-through constituent calls, 1.2 million letters and petitions to Congress, two media and grassroots tours in pro-life Democratic districts, television ads in six districts and comprehensive polling in 20 pro-life Democratic districts.

The Susan B. Anthony List is a nationwide network of Americans, over 280,000 residing in all 50 states, dedicated to mobilizing, advancing, and representing pro-life women in politics. Its connected Candidate Fund increases the percentage of pro-life women in the political process.

###