Ubi Petrus

Against All Heresies points us to a story in the Times (UK) Online which suggests one possible fallout of the Anglican Primates meeting this week could be an eventual reunification of parts of the Anglican Communion under the Pope. What a rumor to start a Monday!

In a 42-page statement prepared by an international commission of both churches, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are urged to explore how they might reunite under the Pope.
…
It comes as the archbishops who lead the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion meet in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in an attempt to avoid schism over gay ordination and other liberal doctrines that have taken hold in parts of the Western Church.
…
Were this week’s discussions to lead to a split between liberals and conservatives, many of the former objections in Rome to a reunion with Anglican conservatives would disappear. Many of those Anglicans who object most strongly to gay ordination also oppose the ordination of women priests.
…
In one significant passage the report notes: “The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the ministry of the Bishop of Rome [the Pope] as universal primate is in accordance with Christ’s will for the Church and an essential element of maintaining it in unity and truth.” Anglicans rejected the Bishop of Rome as universal primate in the 16th century. Today, however, some Anglicans are beginning to see the potential value of a ministry of universal primacy, which would be exercised by the Bishop of Rome, as a sign and focus of unity within a reunited Church.

In another paragraph the report goes even further: “We urge Anglicans and Roman Catholics to explore together how the ministry of the Bishop of Rome might be offered and received in order to assist our Communions to grow towards full, ecclesial communion.”

There have been rumors of Anglican reunification with Rome for probably longer than I’ve been alive, but after their decision to ordain women and certainly after the Episcopal ordination of Gene Robinson, an openly gay man living with his partner (is that the nom du jour?), it was as if ice water had been poured on the possibilities. Now it seems that rather than ice water it may well have been gasoline. If nothing else, this serves to once again highlight the necessity of proper ecclesial unity and the terribly destructive effects of the Reformation on that unity.

Fr. Tim Finigan at The Hermeneutic of Continuity (now that is a great blog name) has some fantastic thoughts from Dom Guillerand on fasting and humility at his post here. My favorite line from this post is, “Fasting is alms given directly to God.” I shall have to remember that for our RCIA class tomorrow when someone asks about the Lenten tradition of fasting. Do read the rest.

For all the Bishop-bashing that goes on in the Catholic blogosphere (some, of course, earned by action and inaction, some not earned or deserved), we must remember to congratulate and thank our Shepherds when they do something right. In light of New York City’s plan to distribute NYC-branded condoms on the city’s subways free of charge, yes, including to minors, Edward Cardinal Egan and Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio staged an all-too-rare joint statement. Two prime points from the statement:

Our political leaders fail to protect the moral tone of our community when they encourage inappropriate sexual activity by blanketing our neighborhoods with condoms.

The taxpayers’ money that is being spent to distribute condoms and promote the attitude that ‘anything goes’ would be far better spent in fostering what is true and what is decent.

At a projected cost already of $1.5M, a friend estimated they could have purchased roughly 100,000 books for the schools, or provided up to 300,000 meals to the homeless. But for some reason they thought it more appropriate to promote a (both physically and spiritually) dangerous activity under the supposed guise of “health” and “safety”.

Somehow I’m sure the city has already made sure they are not liable for any STDs transmitted due to faulty condoms. Of course, the city will gladly handle any unplanned pregnancies they enable by providing city-paid abortions, thus compounding their complicity in destructive behavior with murder. There is a reason so many compare the modern New York with the ancient Babylon, and it’s not just because of its political power.

Given all that, I say “Bravo!” to the Bishops’ stand for what is right and good. Now it is the blogosphere’s turn to thank their Shepherds for doing what they ought and standing in the breech. And it is the job of those of good conscience to do their part to help the Mayor and Board of Health of NYC come to see the error of their ways. We all have a part to play.

I’m currently closely reading the USCCB‘s Catechism for Adults, after the recommendation of Rich Leonardi among others, for possible future use as a resource for our RCIA members. Thus far I have been far more impressed than I expected to be – it is both useful (read: not full of touchy-feely fluff) and authentically Catholic, with an American tilt to it so that it appeals to those of us who truly identify with being Americans. But enough of the review, I came for a quote. From the meditation from Chapter 5:

Why do so many of us tend to brush aside God’s plan for us in our lives? It seems to be because we find it hard to imagine how he can be so loving to us, especially in awkward surroundings. Yet if the divine Word of God could become one of us by taking on our human nature with the cooperation of a young woman in Nazareth, God can surely touch our lives.

Yes, indeed, it does not need to be any less simple than that. Just something for you and me to keep in mind the next time things seem too hard or out of order. Yes, indeed, I could see building a course around this. Gah! The inner reviewer in me strikes again…

Fr. Tom Euteneuer, President of Human Life International, had a particularly stark observation about the lesson of Portugal:

The first lesson from Portugal, then, is that apathy kills.

He has much more to say on the subject, and you should read it in full. It is a call to remember we are still the Church Militant in this world.

H/T to causa nostra laetitiae.

Gerald points us to an interesting article from The Times of London:

Roman Catholicism is set to become the dominant religion in Britain for the first time since the Reformation because of massive migration from Catholic countries across the world. Catholic parishes will swell by hundreds of thousands over the next few years after managing years of decline, according to a new report, as both legal and illegal migrants enter the country.
…
The Catholic Church is the first port of call for thousands when they find themselves in difficulty, with up to 95 per cent from countries such as Poland being practising Catholics. … Most of the migrants settle in London, where some parishes are putting on Sunday Masses from 8am to 8pm to cope, the report, carried out by the Von Hugel Institute at Cambridge, found.
…
[T]hey acknowledge that the immigration is changing the face of Catholicism across Britain. From being an Irish-English church in a mindset of managing steady decline, the Church has within the space of 12 months found itself having to countenance an unprecedented expansion and change in its ethnic make-up.

Figures for 2005 show that there are 4.2 million Catholics in England and Wales, under one fifth the 25 million baptised Anglicans and double the number of Muslims.

This puts a very interesting twist on the idea of Eurabia. Could it be, in fact, that migration of observant (and therein procreating) Catholics from Eastern Europe will form an offset to the migration and reproduction of Muslims from Africa and the Middle East? If you want to make like a weatherman (err, weatherperson) and make a projection from a minute amount of data, this seems like we’re entering a population war, and the only two sides playing along are practicing Catholics and Muslims, and the future and culture of Europe is at stake.

One European imam was quoted as saying that Muslims would conquer Europe “with the wombs of our women”. One does wonder if all those “breeders” the “enlightened” European intelligentsia complain about might not just be the salvation of the cultural patrimony they profess to love. Maybe it’s an overstatement, maybe it’s a foul concept to contemplate; I only ask because it does seem an interesting question – does population decide the Reformation (or Revolution as I’d see it), and does it offer us the start of another clash of civilizations, this time on the European continent, and, perhaps, at Lepanto? Just something to ruminate on…

…the first two things you read are on pornography and prostitution. And that it’s completely by chance. To start off the romance of St. Valentine’s Day, I read this article by Fr. Jonathan at Fox News where he gave his own micro Theology of the Body and linked it to pornography and the sexual entitlement culture:

In this light, the sexual revolution rightly rejected the idea that sex is bad. But, unfortunately, the revolutionaries themselves never understood why it is good. In their eagerness to free themselves from the shackles of traditional sexual morality, they dehumanized sexual love by stripping it of its unique dignity as the ultimate expression of interpersonal union. They turned it into a search for mere sensual pleasure. Given this premise, their conclusion was logical: the more pleasure, the more love.
…
Morality derived from natural law is paradoxical: while at times it may seem oppressive because it tells us “this is good” and “that is bad”, in reality, it is an arrow pointing to natural happiness. It tells us how things work naturally and work best. It is an owner’s manual, of sorts, which explains how we are wired. We discover the natural law through listening to the voice of a well-formed conscience. Following it may be difficult, but doing so allows us to reach our full potential.
…
Out of context, sexuality becomes disoriented and separates us from a true understanding of who we and others are. Pornography reflects a mechanistic view of the human anatomy and its functions. It focuses on a single aspect of the person — sexuality — and neglects the others. Viewing even a single person through such a narrow lens, changes our understanding of all people — including ourselves.

History, morality, natural law and theology all wrapped up in one. It was a good, albeit – err – interesting read. Then I next went to my backlog of First Things posts and picked up this one by Robert Miller about the disabled man in England who got himself on a BBC special for using and promoting prostitutes to enable disabled people to experience a more “full” life.

Mr. Wallis, quite naturally, tries to lead as full a life as possible, and when he went to university he had hoped to form a romantic attachment with a suitable young woman. This didn’t happen. So, convinced that he’s very unlikely to experience sexual intercourse in any other way before he dies, he recently hired a prostitute.
…
But there’s more to this story. We know about Mr. Wallis’ encounter with the prostitute not because it was somehow accidentally disclosed but because Mr. Wallis is willingly telling his story both on a BBC special about disabled individuals living in hospices and in an interview with the Telegraph.
…

“I suppose,” Mr. Wallis continues, “some people may be judgmental.” By judgmental, of course, Mr. Wallis means that some people might think that what he did was wrong. He’s right about this; I think what he did was wrong. But, to be clear, when I say this, I’m not thinking of his sexual adventure with the prostitute; that’s a natural, human, very understandable kind of wrongdoing that I think we should look on with compassion. I think he’s gone far wrong, however, in deciding to publicize this escapade and hold it up as something good and noble and worthy of imitation by others similarly situated. That is not a sin of the flesh. That is a deliberate, intellectual form of wrongdoing. It’s calling evil good and so leading others astray.

The saddest part of this story, however, is that Mr. Wallis seems to have no friends who were willing to speak the truth to him about this.

The last, highlighted, line is perhaps the most important. This good man has had enough tragedy in his life already – to have his friends and family add to it by encouraging behavior detrimental to both his psyche and his eternal soul is just another tragedy, albeit one that may take a long time for him to come to grips with. We should all pray for him, and anyone else he has convinced to follow in his footsteps.

Like I said, what an interesting start to the day.

…the pro-death folks couldn’t get any more arrogant or aggressive. LifeSite News tells us the Swedish government intends to become an international supplier of abortions:

An impending amendment to the current Abortion Act in Sweden will allow Swedish abortionists to abort the children of women from other countries, including countries which protect the right to life of their unborn citizens. The controversial measure which would offer abortion-on-demand during the first eighteen weeks of pregnancy, has drawn criticism from a noted professor of EU legislation and international pro-life leaders.

They could, however, run smack into some snags. Like abortion still being illegal in a few (albeit a dwindling number of) EU states.

The [Ulf Bernitz a professor of European Union Law at Stockholm University] also suggested that Sweden might find itself in violation of the sovereign rights of other nations should it follow the proposed course. “Sweden might get in trouble if it introduces a legislation that causes conflict with other countries’ legislation,” he said.

Somehow I have doubts the well-intentioned politicos in the EU will allow that objection to stand. Having just read Weigel’s The Cube and the Cathedral this strikes as a depressing, but not altogether surprising, continuation of the path Europe has been on for a long time.

H/T to Gerald.

Let me commit a argumentation faux pas and begin with my conclusion: John Edwards, you’re wrong. That said, let’s back up a step.

It’s interesting to notice how even the “conservative” press are handling this issue. Even Fox News’ page on the issue takes a ten-foot pole approach. In essence, they apologized, he’s okay with their apologies, so we’ll all go on our merry way and whistle past the graveyard. But this graveyard is filled with hate that just won’t die. The world of politics is littered with half-hearted apologies of the moment, meant only for sound bite and never intended to have any bite.

Why am I perturbed? Read their posts and if you’re not perturbed that someone like this is advising someone in any fashion I’ll make a sweater out of the wool that’s over your eyes. Let’s start with this now infamous quote from Amanda Marcotte as she attempts to explain Catholicism to Catholics:

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

Repugnant? You bet. Ignorant? I don’t think so. She wrote knowing full well her sexual innuendo would inflame passions on both sides of the issue. Pure raw meat for the rabid secularist left, outright blasphemy for those who happen to admit that there’s something more than me around here. I am impressed, however, that she both managed to rhyme her last line and use the word misogyny against the Catholic Church. It’s a tactic that’s never been tried before. I’m sorry, was that oozing with sarcasm?

Why do I care? Why shouldn’t I just live and let live like we always demand of others in the public sphere? Because these are the very people who stand up and demand firings for much, much less than this. “Fire them, fire them all!” is the tribal chant for those in politics searching for a camera crew and a microphone. But yet when it comes close to them, all of the sudden they’re all about “traditional” values and Christian forgiveness. Right. Next.

But what I find funny is how people just refuse to actually look at what’s been written rather than just accept pre-formatted apologies that her “intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics.” Surely, utterly, unbelievably, beyond belief you jest. Those statements were made specifically to offend, and they had very little to do with public politics. But that’s okay, eventually the term “proof by assertion” is something they’ll come to learn.

While the overstatement is unfortunate, this apology reminds me of the imams who preach peace in public in English but violence and destruction when they think they’re not being watched. Dale has a good list of the coverage this has engendered here and here. The only good news for those of us who care is that by taking such public positions their abilities to pull these antics will be sharply curtailed. I have no doubts their hatred for the Catholic Church remain, but one can only hope and pray that this spotlight on their darkened souls just might provide some opportunity for reflection. Pray for them both, they need it more than they’re willing to know.