Ubi Petrus

Unfortunately for our late pontiff andindeed as well our current pope, it appears the long-desired episcopal reconciliation with the Anglican Church is pushing further and further away. As Fr. Richard Neuhaus rather pointedly blogged, “As of this week’s General Convention, however, one thing seems certain beyond doubt: The Episcopal Church in the U.S. has declared itself to be just another liberal Protestant denomination, in deliberate defiance of the Anglican Communion and in scornful indifference to a long history of hope for reconciliation with Catholicism.”

I have no intention of posting anything (now, anyway) on the merits of ordaining gays and lesbians to the priesthood, or the merits of women in the episcopacy. It is sufficient at this time to remember, “Roma locuta est, causa fini est” and thus the sad fact that the Episcopal Church has decided having women in the episcopacy is more important than acloser communion with their Catholic bretheren. I count this among the sad days.

According to Rocco, and as published now worldwide (apologies for my laxity) the U.S. Bishops have approved the new translation of the Mass. Further on, Rocco has provided an overview of the amendments the USCCB has made, all of which wait for the recognitio of the Vatican. Generally speaking, I’m with everyone else who agrees that it will probably take about two years before we see this new translation rolled out to its first use.

A friend complained this weekend (I’m apparently becoming the focal point of questions on our Church – not that I mind, but not that I asked either) that she had memorized the prayers and was quite proud that she did not need to read the Missal(lette). My response was to point to my mother-in-law and say, “the changes here are nothing in comparison to learning the Mass in a whole new language like she had to”. In the end, it is only a few words we lay people will have to learn anew and within a few weeks the new translation will be memorized just as the previous had been. In the interim, I can only hope that people use this newfound slight discomfort as an opportunity to rediscover, or perhaps discover for the first time, the momentous event that is the Mass. True, many have memorized, but I often wonder just how many have internalized. Time will tell.

Over at his blog, Father Jonathan has made some poignant points about the rank hypocrisy of the German government. To suggest there is such a thing as “safe” prostitution is to suggest that it is safe to troll through, say, inner-city Los Angeles screaming racial epithets. Sure, you may not get harmed. This time. But do it five or ten times a day and you’re likely to come across someone who may just not quite be interested in entertaining you at this time.

The fact that the move to make prostitution legal was considered by feminists to be a liberating move shows sadly now far the feminist movement has fallen these days. When a woman is only considered to be free and “liberated” when she can say, make or do anything a man can do, and is defined only by how much of the “traditional” male role she takes on something great is lost. Women have some of the greatest gifts in the world sheerly by virtue of being women; to suggest they need to become more like men to become “equal” is to show an utter disregard for the wonder and beauty that is the woman created by God. One can only hope the enlightened leadership of Germany is listening to the concerns of most of the world on this matter. I fear they may, however, play to their new sport which is to only listen to those with whom they already agree.

Over at Open Book, Amy Welborn is at it again. The post-Vatican II crowd that suddenly thinks the doors were thrown open for everyone to run the Church as co-equal magistrates simply can’t understand why anyone in an episcopal office might not agree with them. Amy really nails them with the following:

Here’s what I challenge writers like Ginnetty and Gallardetz to do: show me the money. Give me evidence. Do you think that in the JP2/Benedict/Bishop Finn/Chaput Church that the laity are being oppressed and demeaned, marginalized to pay, pray and obey once again? Prove it. Look at those dioceses and crunch some numbers and tell me if the ordained are in charge of everything, if laity are silenced. Survey the most active Catholic apostolates, movements and ministries – do web site statistics. Survey who’s out there speaking to Catholic audiences, who’s writing Catholic books and articles. Look at the biggest, most active Catholic groups out there, who they’re ministering to, and who’s doing the ministering.

Sure, that possibly does push the edge of the collegiality envelope. But then, so does insisting that the Bishops pray, play and obey.

No, not the company. Veritas, as in Pilate’s question to Jesus: “Quid est Veritas?” It is a markedly stark example of asking a question with the answer staring you in the face; to ask Truth itself “what is truth?” But yet today truth, let alone Truth, is something that has become so difficult to understand that discussion of truth is quickly quieted or even reduced to scorn. Father Jonathan over at FoxNews has a phenomenal post today, including this:

In 2006 we have all but turned off our minds. When the crux of the argument is personal opinion and it all depends, public debate sounds unimportant, because it is.

Six years into the new millennium we don’t ask questions. Lunch rooms are for eating. If you have to talk, tell me about the weather, the Yankees, or my pretty blouse.

We only know one thing for sure: “Truth” is a code word for intolerance, dogma, and always ends in Inquisition. We don’t want to go there.

Friends, I, with you, wish things were so simple. If nothing mattered, we could say truth is for the birds and go our merry way. But two big towers came toppling down, Africa is dying and Europe is confused. Our borders are not safe, and inside them, people are abused. Abortion makes babies die and mothers cry. Iraq is burning. People kill in the name of God.

Pause for thought, no? And always, always remember: grey is always made up of black and white.

So I’m sitting here leafing through this catalog I got in the mail yesterday from Ignatius Press. My first thought was “wow”. Then I suddenly realized I had taken on the persona of my five year-old son with a toy catalog – flipping page to page and starting back at the beginning when I reached the end. I have several problems with this catalogue though. My first problem is I simply can’t decide what I’d like to get first. My second problem is I still haven’t plowed through my already-increasing pile of reading material. And third, I simply don’t have enough money to buy all the books that have really caught my eye.

Aside from the books, they also have several different sections for videos, tapes, and gifts. The “From: me To: me” gift that’s currently at the top of my list is their Pieta sculpture. I’ve always loved the Pieta in its various forms, and to find one that won’t completely break my bank makes me even happier.

Oh, and on a totally different note, it looks like I’ve finally convinced my workstation to work with the new modular X configuration in Gentoo. The last package (OpenOffice 2.0.2) finished building some time today while I was at work. As anyone who has ever built OOo on a Pentium system can tell you, that is a long, arduous process. Time to go play and see what broke. While I hope the answer is “nothing”, I’ve worked around computers long enough to have absolutely no expectation to that end.

In his blog today at FIRST THINGS Joseph Bottum proposes a concept that has the unique property of being even more true without its surrounding context than with it. In discussing the recurring massive protests in France, he writes: “It’s tempting to pose this as a general rule: A people who lack any sense of the future will find that the future lacks any sense of them.” As true as it is in relation to those protesting (and hopefully not rioting) it is equally as true throughout the course of human history – any person or group without hope for the future forfeits their ability to truly have an impact on that future. One pauses to think…

So like so many I thought it wouldn’t be hard keeping up with a blog. After all, I’m caught yapping and typing all the time. Heh. Not exactly shall we say. So what has been taking up all my time? Let’s see…

• Watching the World Baseball Classic – yes, it really did turn out better than I’d expected, even though the U.S. didn’t win. Good baseball is always worth watching, no matter who is playing.
• Catching up on my back reading (I’m up to January!) of Billiards Digest, Catholic Digest and FIRST THINGS.
• Trying to figure out how to get my to-be-work system to update its Gentoo installation to work properly with their new modular X configuration. Lesson learned: next time read the whole document instead of skipping ahead. *sigh*
• Trying to keep up with all my friends over at Catholic-Pages.com. The discussions are generally lively and the people are just plain smart. As much as I thought I knew about the Catholic faith, these people continue to amaze me with what’s still to be learned.
• And finally I’ve been slowly making my way through Pope Benedict‘s 2005 book, A New Song For The Lord. While it’s not the perfect book, since it’s based on a collection of lectures and interviews, all through the pages I’m finding unique insights and ways of seeing I hadn’t contemplated before.

Since none of that is much of an excuse, I suppose I should at least provide the news local to me. Recently the Diocese of Manchester announced the appointment of a new President and CEO for New Hampshire Catholic Charities. This wouldn’t normally be newsworthy, other than for two facts:

• This is the first time the Bishop of Manchester has not been the active head of Catholic Charities.
• The recent, err, issues concerning the lay leaders of some of the Catholic Charities in areas such as Boston and San Francisco.

Do I think this means anything? I don’t know yet. I only hope that our Diocese is blessed with servants more interested in doing the God’s will than their own, and should that fail to happen, that our Diocesean leadership will be sure to keep them in accord with their Catholic charter. The last thing our Catholic Church needs is any more scandals.

Well now doesn’t this just get interesting? A group that calls itself The National Center For Men has filed suit on behalf of a gentleman named Matt Dubay. At issue? He hadn’t intended for his then-girlfriend to get pregnant and now wants to be able to opt out of paying child support. Their press release is here.

On the surface this gives us one of two responses: 1) he’s just being greedy and trying to have his cake and eat it too; or 2) he was duped by his then-girlfriend and should have every reproductive right she has. Of course, sadly, neither of these responses even bothers to raise into question what really should be the ultimate problem at issue – the modern concept of sex without issues as a constitutionally protected right. Yes, that’s right, I’m going to drag out the time-honored statement: “if they hadn’t been having sex they wouldn’t have this problem”. There. You can stop reading now if you think that’s far too old-school for the modern world.

Now really, if you’re still reading, you understand that not having sex is the only way to ensure you don’t have unplanned pregnancy. Sure, the world has given us birth control methods that have very low “failure” rates. But as a friend once warned me, “it only takes one”.

The question of this lawsuit, however, isn’t settled just by saying “they shouldn’t have done that” because they already did and now there is a life in this world that needs help. No matter how correct you may be, wagging your finger is almost never a solution to an issue. The problem here is both sides are right: the child has a right to support from both of her parents, and the man involved in reproductive issues is denied the same rights as given to the woman.

I’m sadly left, lacking the wisdom of Solomon, to posit that this may well be an intractable problem in our national set of laws and social norms. God has ordained that women carry the baby for nine months while the man effectively has no fixed obligation after those inital moments of pleasure. Note that I said “effectively”; this is not to suggest that he should not, only that it is not impossible for him to simply walk away at that point which stands in stark contrast to the options open to women.

How, at that point, do we say “you, woman, have the right to stop this pregnancy at any point for any reason” and simultaneously say “you, man, now have no more say one way or the other”. After all, it certainly does seem to reflect the physical reality of the situation. But where in our system of laws is it stated that the performance of an otherwise lawful act necessarily causes the actor to lose rights? That certainly doesn’t seem very American, now does it? How does one solve this riddle? Right now I confess I don’t know. But what I do know is that the U.S. court system has yet to show me that it’s the right place to figure this out.