Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« 6 Imams Removed From Flight | Main | What If . . . »

November 23, 2006

Comments

Calvin Broadus

I agree that we should Thank God for our blessings and get together with family.

But to celebrate genocide on Native American Indians (not to be confused with the Hindu Indians Columbus thought he found) and destruction of people through killing, disease, and destruction of culture is wrong.

As Malcolm X said: We didn't land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on us.

For all you neocons who want to blame Meskins for everything and limit immigration, I bet the Indians wish they never helped Standish, or Lewis and Clark and stopped all this before it began.

I think even your last Pope apologized for the racism, genocide and destruction the US and Europeans brought on Native Americans.

I can celebrate a day of Thanksgiving but nothing to do with Pilgrims, Puritans or any of the white racism that goes along with it.

Ann Margaret Lewis

I don't believe anyone celebrates the genocide of Indians. We celebrate God's goodness, and what he gives us. It's only appropriate to take a day out to give thanks. In fact, since the Puritans did take time to thank God for all they had, it was probably one thing they did right.

We celebrate the one thing they (and others) did right. For, as is not more recently discovered, the first Thanksgiving on this continent was probably a Catholic Mass:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041125-011215-4343r.htm

Have a blessed day of Thanksgiving, everyone.

bill912

Ann Margaret, you are right, of course. But then, you don't have a Hobby Horse to ride.

Monarchist

Jimmy and All:

Enjoy your Thanksgiving. I'll be giving thanks but celebrating the Feast of Christ the King, the event Thanksgiving was intented to replace.


BTW: Great article of Catholic Blogs by Australian R.J. Stove earlier this year in ORIGENS magazine.


Happy Ex-Calvinist

Jimmy Akin

Okay, Calvin. You're done.

You've been given a RULE 1 warning before, and if you can't resist turning a simple positive sentiment like "Happy Thanksgiving" into an occasion to start lobbing allegations of racism and engaging in baseless name-calling ("neocons") in the combox then you are done.

You've had your chance.

You are hereby disinvited from participating in the blog and are prohibited from posting here again.

And for your own sake, *please* try to start letting go of the anger that is consuming you. You will not be able to be happy if you continue to allow every "Happy Thanksgiving" in life to send you into a tirade about historical injustices. There have been--and *are*--horrendous injustices in the world, but God does not intend us to spend every moment of life focused on them. We're not designed to do that, and we will injure ourselves if we attempt it.

We must be willing to let go of our anger, according to St. Paul (Eph. 4:26), and we must be willing to forgive, according to Jesus (Matt. 6:14-15). Being willing to do these things is essential if we are to be happy.

For your own sake, *please* stop feeding on a constant diet of anger and accept the interpersonal reconciliation that God intends us to pursue.

Mary

The Pilgrims did not commit genocide.

A fishing ship had stopped by somewhat earlier to trade. Alas, it was carrying the plague, and the plague did to the local inhabitants just what it did to many a village in England when it first struck there: exterminated them.

There were no people there for them to kill

Br. Francis

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! Let's always remember to give thanks to God for His Son's death on the Cross. Let us give thanks for our Catholic Faith which enables us to come close to Christ! Please also remember to pray for the Pope as he goes on his upcoming trip to Turkey!

Ed Peters

Happy Thanksgiving, folks.

Some Day

The pilgrims were protestants, that says it all.

(plus not even the orginal protestants wanted them. One abyss leads to another

Some Day

But lets turn something bad and make it good.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Deo Gratias!

Tim J.

Happy Thanksgiving, y'all.

Puzzled

Our National Day of Thanksgiving unto God, descending from the Pilgrim's (not the Puritans) feast of thanksgiving descends from the God-commanded feast of Sukkoth and the tithe-feast commanded in Deuteronomy 14 to ancient Israel.

It wasn't intended to replace anything, except a lack of gratitude to God.

The Pilgrims arrived too late in the year to have a good harvest, and lost half their number to starvation that winter. The next year, they tried a communal system of farming. That didn't work, and they were on very short rations the next winter. Then Tisquantum, pronounced Squanto by English tongues, who was kidnapped and taken slave by English sailors who sold him in Spain (showing BTW that they had to be Catholics, not Protestants) having converted to Christianity in Spain and learned English in England, and been sent back home by his friends in England, finding his band wiped out by the plague, befriended the Pilgrims, showed them how to plant in the new soil with the right crops and methods, and by God's grace, they had a great harvest. Since they, unlike the later Puritans, got along very well with the Wampanoag, they invited them to this feast. The Wampanoag, like many Algonquian-speakers, believed in a creator behind the spirits, and the idea of a feast of thanks was not foreign to them, so they accepted the invitation and joined in for three days of feasting, thanks to the Creator, and games.

Puzzled

Addenda, it was a Spanish priest who bought him, in order to spare him slavery.

Also, Catholic triumphalism is every bit as obnoxious as Protestant triumphalism.

bill912

"Also, Catholic triumphalism is every bit as obnoxious as Protestant triumphalism."

Amen, Puzzled. Happy Thanksgiving.

Monica

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! ANyone want to meet me at walmart at 5AM tomorrow? Doesn't that sound like FUN? (read with sarcasm.)

Elijah

I admit to being fairly ignorant as to the history of Thanksgiving, but without some directly quoted evidence, I'm not buying that article. Englishmen offended by hunting? Puritans bothered by seeing women work too hard? Don't buy it.

Randolph Carter

Well, I admit I'm a little late coming to this, but I hope everyone had a happy Thanksgiving.

ruth

Jimmy,
That just wasn't cool kicking Calvin out. Nothing he said was innately disturbing...we may disagree with him but healthy debate is what I thought this was all about.
So sad........

Michael Serafin

I am not African American and may have a little American Indian blood and thus do not have the passion of some posters on this subject. I will have to agree with Ruth that kicking out Calvin was unnecessary. The word neocon is not necessarily pejorative. While I can understand being disturbed by the sentiment of criticizing a noble ideal like Thanksgiving--it is a legitimate discussion as to the beginnings, nature, and criticisms of Thanksgiving.

I do not know about Englishmen not liking the Indians hunting (or at least how) or Puritans (or Pilgrims) not liking women doing "men's" work BUT I have heard that Thanksgiving was meant to compete with the feast of Christ the King AND that the Pilgrims were neo-Jewish Christians who (some believed they were descendants from the tribe of Ephraim and thus England were true Jews and Blessed--the Armstrongism and some Mormons contend this)were emulating Old Testament feast days.

I am PRO-DEAD WHITE MALES, but at the same time NOT because they are white at least not per se (and some may have been dark as in Mediterranean and were from Africa)(I am not subscribing to the Afro-centric that Plato, Pythagoras etc were all Black but they were not Anglo Germanic blond hair blue eyes either--not that it matters per se but it certainly is an issue for many and race and culture do matter)--The reason it should not matter is that WESTERN HERITAGE is or at least should be a Philosophical/Theological/Metaphysical system (In my opinion the merging of Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Christian thought with Greek and Christian being the most dominant--and an Aristolian base a la the real point of the Pope's "Muslim" lecture which was on rationality)
NOT a racial system as some of the neo-confederate's allege including some friends via internet link of Jimmy Akin (who I like a lot)

When I was in Peru (and I am very fond of Opus Dei but not a member) I was shocked to find the crypt of Pizarro in the Cathedral as Pizarro was a mass murderer, an adulterer, committed genocide and was a brutal killer albeit one with guts and courage. But courage can come from insanity and also the Devil and while a virtue is not the only one as the Islamic terrorists seem to exhibit courage or at least an analogous virtue of lack of fear of death (as I know many will argue it is not courage etc.)
I am more sympathetic to Cortez as is Jose Vasconcelos as Cortez had Indian allies (the Tlaxcalans) and most of the death was due to illness and not direct killings although there were certainly massacres and many evils you can read Bernal Diaz or Bartolome de las Casas for that.

Calvin is presumedly African American/Black and from perhaps a PC/Victim perspective---While I am not from a so called PC perspective, from a Catholic perspective, reinforced by papal encyclicals at least by theory for over 500 years and this last Pope---SLAVERY was brutal and one can see why the descendants of slaves may not understand or respect all of the Holidays for the same reason and the GENOCIDE of the American Indians (in the bigger sense North and South) by all sorts of ethnic groups from Europe was a great sin and crime against humanity. That does not mean there was not a lot of good or redeeming on a human level or virtue with Pilgrims (I think the Separated English Church)--many virtues as faith in God, hard work etc. BUT I can understand why Calvin has some legitimate historical misgivings of Thanksgiving and do not think it is right to ban him from the board (although he certainly is strident). Good discussion even about sacrosant and even good Holidays that have some questionable historical beginnings does not challenge the Holiday but could strengthen it and both of our understandings of true "diversity" and understanding among peoples.
Jimmy certainly is right on a personal level of letting anger and hate, even legitmate anger and hate or justifiable, as anger and hate can destroy the person who was originally the victim.

I write this sincerely with devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. May Our Lady of Guadalupe interced for us.

bill912

Michael, did you read Calvin's posts on other recent threads and Jimmy's Rule 1 warning to him?

David B.

ruth,

The axe may fall on any one of us at any time. :-)

Some Day

But some people speak like they know something, and pontificate like crazy.
Now if you know what you are saying fine, but don't be rude about it.
He isn't even Catholic so what good can he offer?
Your Pope?
Now I agree that Thanksgiving is some false "holiday" just like the Easter bunny and other pagan and materialistic events (Christmas without Christ)
But I am not going to rub it in everyones face at length. Say it and move on, those who are meant to understand will.
Secondly, the killing of indians?
Indians?
You do realize that Omnes Dii Gentium Sum Demonae right?
The poor Aztecs and their culture?
Culture?
Culture is what arrose out of the merits of the Cross in Europe after it embraced Our Lord.
Eating people and running around naked is not culture.
So we are obliged to convert them and help them become civilized and take the good in their people and perfect it, just as the Church did for the barbarians of Europe.
Now some errors occured along the way yes, but over all Latin America is Catholic.
North America however fell in to the hands of protestants.
That says it all.
So forget about it, reject all that is evil in your heart and make the best of it, and concentrate more in thanking God.
Te Deum laudamus...

Juan

Aztec culture, and culture would be the word, as well as other words like society and civilization, had many serious flaws such as human sacrifice and slavery. They however were not introduced to Christianity at that time and had many accomplishments which rivaled or even surpassed European culture including aqueducts, sanitation, hygiene, architecture (pyramids) etc.
Culture is just that which rises out of Christ although I agree with Harvard (and Catholic) Christopher Dawson historian that says culture and religion are interconnected and in fact culture arises from religion (not just Christ or Christianity but Judaism, Islam, Buddhsim, Hinduism) Aztec culture was bloodthirsty but if you read the onsite histories of the Spanish conquistadores and Cortez himself you will find awe when they saw Tenochtitlan and that it surpassed even Constantinople (the greatest at that time although by that time under Muslim rule) But Aztec culture was not the only Mesoamerican or Mexican culture with advanced cultures dating centuries before (including claims of Monotheism or some type of quasi monotheism) with Olmecs and Mayans (mathematics, architecture, astronomy) and Toltecs the pre-Aztec civilization and other regions who were at war with the Aztecs like the Tarascans from Michoacan.
If you want to read some models I agree with in terms of Evanglization and merging of cultures the Missions in Paraguay of the Jesuits (of the famous DeNiro movie) or Vasco de Quiroga in Michoacan and the writings of Bartolome de Las Casas--theoretically some of the same arguments of Evangelization and argument (although not the same balances of power and conquest) with Jesuits like Mateo Ricci (whose Memory Palace is incredible) (in China) among others in China who made incredible cultural contributions and Roberto de Nobilli in India (which was more problematic)
There was a merger and borrowing (in a postive way) in Europe with Christian culture but it seems some would not want to do the same in the Americas. The people of the Americas, whether the majorities are Catholic are not, have suffered immensely because of structural injustice hacienda/economienda exploitative economic systems (not distributism), racial class and caste systems, outright slavery, physical death through massacres, rape, and yes most of the death from illness spread through many ways which created perhaps uninentionally: the death of millions if not tens of millions of people in North, South and Central American as well as destruction of entire cultures civilizations languages customs etc.
To recognize this reality is not denying the reality of Christ or the importance of Christian culture.

Is Thanksgiving a fake Holiday? I don't think so as any excuse to enjoy time with family, eat together (even if gluttonous), thank God for what we have, and some people give back to others at soup kitchens and give food to others it seems good and has produced fruit. To dig deeper at historical and philosophical realities, whether the inconsistencies and outright errors of Protestantism or the evil imposed on people especially North American/US Native American Indians is not a bad thing but should not overshadow spending time with family and/or thanking God for our material blessings.

Michael Serafin

Bill912, I am not familiar with the other posts please point them out to me.

Some Day, somebody not being Catholic should not prohibit them from being on this blog although certainly Jimmy can do whatever he wants on his blog. The point of apologetics is to convert, not to merely "sing to the choir". You ask what a non Catholic can offer, well Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Euclid were all not Catholic among others. Some become Catholic later perhaps this Calvin will become Catholic, perhaps not, but stranger things have happened.

Jimmy says the ad hominem or innapropriate attack was in the use of the word neo-con???
Go on many other more "Traditionalist" Catholic websites that are far more critical of the so called "neo-con" moniker and political philosophy. I do not see any personal attacks by Calvin, at least not in this thread and posting, perhaps in others I have not seen.

Some Day, your minimization of all Indians, or minimization of the grave sins of some Catholics in Mexico and South America do injustice to real evil and sin. My reading of Pizarro is that he was a adulterous, evil, brutal, murderous man. Cortez is far more sympathetic. But we must recognize death and destruction unnecessarily by human hands when it presents itself, this does not mean being less Catholic but actually more.

Jesus is not about a particular historical perspective or political point of view. But to recognize historical sins and evil, whether it be from Communists the French Revolution or even Conquistadors acting in the name of Christ and the Church or Protestants and our own government in history who did so much wrong to American Indians.

I repeat my prayer for Our Lady of Guadalupe to intercede for us. And the prayers of St. Kiki Terewatha and St. Juan Diego to shower blessings of Peace, freedom from illness, and understanding of all peoples and cultures.

bill912

Michael: November 16, 2006 "Dang Double Jeopardy Law". I think you will find that Jimmy was very tolerant with Calvin.

ruth

Amen micheal....

I as well lived with our neighbors to the south, Nicaragua to be exact. Those that minimize the atrocities done in the domination of the North and South America's are turning a blind eye to greed and murder sometimes masked as the work of God. I think many Catholics have adopted a knee jerk response to those that point out the faults, failures and atrocities of those times because they think that in that criticism is the condemnation of the bringing of the Catholic faith to the Americas. This is simply not true.
One of my favorite Catholics of the era was the Dominican Bartolomeo De Las Casas. His imposing statue still stands with his arms out in supplication, speaking the truth that to murder a human being in the name of 'God' or for land or gold is a sin which Hell rejoices in. Apparently, we still have much to learn of his exortations.

Tim J.

"...we may disagree with him but healthy debate is what I thought this was all about."

An innocuous "Happy Thanksgiving" is not exactly an invitation to debate, but even if it were, Calvin is clearly not interested in real debate, but only in bomb-throwing. Classic troll behavior.

He has a brief, but colorful, history here at JA.O. You should read his other posts to get a sense of things. He has been unfailingly insulting and crude.

But about this maligned holiday...

In what sense is Thanksgiving a celebration of genocide? Seems to me like a pretty Equal Opportunity thing, giving thanks. The Wampanoag and the pilgrims celebrated together for three days. Commemorating this is racist HOW exactly?

Ed S

An interesting article on the "myth of the first thanksgiving" can be found at the following site:
http://www.topix.net/content/trb/1345117055364798573007578695643636170631

See also the site of the Plimoth Plantation mentioned in the article:

http://www.plimoth.org/visit/what/

Some Day

Believe it or not I am Latin American.
In fact from two countries labeled "tira flechas".
So regardless of my family, I am bound to have some indian ancestors.
So its not that I am taking shots at indians.
I am taking a shot at the idea that converting the indians and clothing them is evil.
There were errors obviously, and they deserve repulse, but they were not as much as history from the perspective we were taught in would like us to think. The spanish did not role out with guns and wiped them. The indians outnumbered them pretty bad.
Also a Catholic country has the right to convert a country that is not. And with religion also comes culture.
Maybe I expressed myself incorrectly, but I am sure I mentioned that one must take what is good and perfect it.
To convert and civilize does not mean to wipe out every single custom. Many muslim mosques were converted to churches in the Reconquista.
Other pagan temples too. A country that, even though it lacks the influence of the Church, can still flourish when it is organic and in a sense civilized.
I believe my error was to describe Catholic civilization as the only, when I meant was that it is more architype.
The indians had good things. The romans had good things. Every people can bring a good thing.
In fact, it would seem that the countries of indians will soon convert the pagans and athiests of Europe.
It is as God wills it.
God Bless.

(And don't forget to burn off the new loose muscle we've aquired.)

John

Jimmy and all

God bless you and your families, as we have so much to be thankful for. I was watching EWTN and I dont know who this speaker was, but he said that we all wish for food, health and shelter and the things that are most important to us we all take for granted until one of the above is taken from us

We can agree to disagree, but we are all here for such a short iota of time in the scheme of things, and we all have to be grateful for Jimmy to allow us this forum to discuss our views, as well as for eachother for all wanting the best for our Church

God bless (though this is a bit late)

Phil Remus

I was eating my Thanksgiving leftovers and was watching the History Channel (nicknamed in my house the Hitler Channel and my kids and wife vote me down on watching it) Engineering in ancient cities including Carthage came on and a large episode on the Aztecs came on and it was incredible the hydraulic, civil engineering equivalent, sanitation, water flow, public hygiene and sanitation, city planning and other items of engineering that long ago and without certain materials, knowledge or technologies. The Spanish completely wiped this knowledge out and much of the knowledge was superior to European specifically Spanish at that time. There is no doubt that the Industrial Revolution and Scientific Revolution brought technology that far outpaced the rest of the world including the then advanced Chinese and Islamic civilization especially in warfare (weapons of mass destruction)and trade (trains, planes, automobiles) The Aztecs had an incredible civlization on these human terms. Some argue that the Roman Catholic Church impeded the Scientific and Industrial Revolution and many Trads today argue that the Industrial Revolution was bad (more for a Monarchist, Distributionism, Medeival model) and the Scientific Revolution was flawed because of the non-Aristotelean methods especially of Sir Isaac Newton.
The Spanish Catholics, with many good things they brought (including the wheel, written language, Catholicism if you believe it is true as a per se good, codified law, printing press, University) also brought the destruction of 90% OF THE POPULATION AT THAT TIME, a system of racial discrimination and economic exploitation that we still feel today in massive poverty, drug dealing, revolution and other problems, and a destruction not only of human life but of language and according to the history channel engineering achievements that were some of the greatest in the world at that time.

Thanks for what was given is some times also given with sorrow as what was taken.

Adding my belated wishes for good Thanksgiving weekend. Well, there's still the rest of today and tomorrow.

Jimmy, looks like some trolls have been flushed out.

Michael Serafin

One can call others trolls but one cannot call some general people neocons? The troll thing seems offensive and a violation of the rules.

Tim J.

Michael -

From Wikipedia:

"In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, most often in the form of posting inflammatory, off-topic, insulting, or otherwise inappropriate messages...

The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet groups in the late 1980s. It is widely thought to be a contraction of the phrase 'trolling for suckers', itself derived from the sport fishing technique of trolling."

David B.

Phil,


That was your thesis statment. Where are the fact to back it up?

Michael Serafin

I am not sure whether the anonymous poster (and others) are merely calling the original controversial Calvin a troll (which still seems offensive just as Jimmy Akin would consider neocon offensive even though I could give a wikipedia definition of it) or others trolls assumedly those who have some historical criticism of Thanksgiving or some bringing to attention issues of so called Indians of North, Central and South American who suffered brutal persecution and genocide. I certainly write as a Catholic and one who asks for a renewal of true Christian civilization as much as it can happen and prayerfully. I am not sure who is new, who is allowed, and who is "trolling" in this "internet community" but I thought part of the blog was to stimulate discussion of issues even by non Catholics and hopefully cause conversions and allow those who are Catholics to grow in their faith not merely a circular discussion on prudential matters to exclude other ideas and opinions. There seems to be a double standard on insults, off topic discussions, and allowable issues. I could be critical of others who have posted on here and even the more controversial post that Bill912 pointed out to me including his own statements to include implicit at least jokes if not insults about human sexuality, one liners, dismissive comments of legitimate issues, and assuming race or ethnicity when it is not known.

Phil Remus

Without getting controversial or into the historical or internal internet rules of Jimmy:
HAVE A HAPPY THANKSGIVING, whether that is for actual historical reasons or just to Thank God for what we have and to spend time with family.
For me I can barely move and am flipping channels and watching a lot of history channel and arguments about Hannibal, Russia, Napolean and yes the Americas and the indigeneous civilizations. I am a geek and prefer the History Channel (and the Military) over sports.

Mary Kay

Tim, thanks for posting that definition.

Michael, I can't speak for others, only myself, but this weekend is a "down" time before the flurry of the next 6 weeks. I wouldn't be able to get my brain cells to put a serious thought together for any reason.

Some Day

What is a neocon?
Sorry it takes me a while with these terms.

The Inquisitor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-con

As good a description as I have ever read.

John

Phil

If you consider the Spaniards stopping the mass sacrifices of human beings to the sun because they believed that if they did not the sun would stop rising, and the murder and butchery of opposing civilizations (Aztecs, Inca, etc) and the conversion of these pagan worshippers (1st commandment anyone?) to be such a horrible thing-then you had better get out your PC calandar and like TV and the secular media want our children to believe just how bad the white man is and how our children should be ashamed of our heritage.

If these other groups can teach their kids to be proud about whatever culture they are brought up in, I have no problem teaching my children to be proud of all of the accomplishments that we as White European Catholics have offered and given to this world and have nothing to be sorry for

John

Some Day

Basically a neo con or a traditional is someone who actually belives and follows ALL (note the word ALL) of the church teachings BEFORE the church itself decided to Modernize itself (at the warnings and teachings NOT to by past popes) to be more like the Modern sinful secular world and conform to the worlds sinful acts and deeds (contraception I now understand to be approved by the church in certain circumstances, and in which only 5% of married catholics actually do not use birth control, not to mention homosexuality, all faiths worship the same God and can be saved even if they do not ackowledge Jesus as God (Moslems), etc)-Neocons and Traditionals actually follow and adhere to the teachings before this all took place. Is this bad one must ask yourself

God bless

Dr. Eric

I fit the above description and I am NOT a neocon.

Dr. Eric

Bold off!

Ralph Kruegler

That is not a good definition of a neocon.

Jessica

John,

I'm really sorry that you feel that definition of the 'Modern Church' is true. I am unsure where the Church ever said contraception is alright or that homosexual acts are not disordered. Am I missing something?

J.R. Stoodley

Some Day,

The problem is that there is a political definition of neocon (President Bush and his top cabinate members would be prime examples) and a Catholic one, which would usually mean someone like Jimmy and Tim J. who accept all the teachings of the Church very much including Vatican II and other recent Magisterial acts, as opposed to traditionalsists like John who tend to see everything from Vatican II on in a negative light and want to go back to how the Church used to be before the latest reforms. I find myself somewhere in the middle.

Note that many who would fit this definition of neocon in the Catholic Church don't like the word, perhaps because it is limiting, suggests they arn't as faithful to Tradition as traditionalists, and perhaps because it associates them with political neoconservatives more closely than they would like.

J.R. Stoodley

I should point out that traditionalists have the unfortunate tendancy to reject recent Church teaching by overemphasizing the fact that it is not always infallible, and to set up themselves (or a traditionalist organization) as a the interpreter of what is or is not Sacred Tradition while ignoring the authenic Magisterium.

"Neocons" by contrast tend to accept whatever is coming out of the Vatican as practically the word of God and thus see themselves as simply faithful Catholics who are centered on what the Church is and teaches, not veering to the right or the left. This is more faithful and humble and fitting for the position of the layperson in the Church, but has the potential problem of ignoring anything that is less than ideal in the Church today. If the Church is so perfect today why was it so different just 50 years ago? If reform was needed then why not now?

My proposal is that we need to find a way of being totally faithful to all the teachings of the Magisterium while still being able to recognize when valuable Catholic tradition and even doctrine has been sidelined in the name of things like modernization and ecumanism.

J.R. Stoodley

As for Native American culures, yes they are clearly cultures, and every culture has good points and bad. It is right to seek to obliterate bad aspects of your culture, though when you are trying to change someone elses culture I think you'll run into occasions, in minor things like clothing not major things like human sacrifice, where it is none of another cultures business to decide what is right for another. You grew up in a different culture and are judging the other through those eyes. There are universal moral norms but sometimes you have to be part of the group to judge how those apply to you.

There are also good aspects of every culture, and I hope everyone here will agree that those should be retained if possible. That means much art, archecture, music, holiday customs where possible (holly, wreaths, Yule logs, Easter eggs, etc. in European tradition) and perhaps perhaps technology if it is not better to just replace it with something more advanced. As long as anything is not overtly pagan I think the local peoples should be the ones to decide what to keep, and what European customs to adopt.

We obviously should strive to spread the gospel to all nations. This however must always be accomplished through missionary activity not violence. Europeans used both in the New World. We should praise the one and condemn the other, not lumping both together as so many do and condemning or defending the whole thing.

I think the point about Thanksgiving, inasmuch as it is seen by some (not my family for whatever reason) as comemorating the pilgrims, is that it seems to approve of colonization. It is hard to see how any of the European colonization of the Americas was just. Yes, plagues ravaged the Native Americans, but in most areas a remnant population remained. That was certainly the case in Massachsetts. That land belonged to the Indians. What the pilgrims did is invade another nation. You will have to show me from the Just War doctrine how that invasion was justified before I will accept it or any other European invasion of America, including the westward expansion of the USA in the 19th century.

John

Jessica said "I'm really sorry that you feel that definition of the 'Modern Church' is true. I am unsure where the Church ever said contraception is alright or that homosexual acts are not disordered. Am I missing something?
"

Jessica-just look at the pedophilia scandal and the say and do nothing approach the Vatican on down has taken these past 40 years.

In its quest to get a more modern open priesthood after the reforms, Homosexuals flocked to the priesthood as they for many reasons, saw something the church after the council had to offer (the reasons for this need to be discussed in an another forum-there are many books on this subject)

The church took no action against these men, despite the following code of Canon Law which I am sure was modified by John Paul II, and I apologize for the "cut and paste", but can surely be found on www.rcf.com. Notwithstanding,these pedophiles were let into the priesthood in droves with the formation directors looking the other way, as long as these men for the most part were open to the reforms of Vatican II, were OK with a future married priesthood, and OK with a future female prieshtood.


THE CANON LAW DIGEST
Officially Published Documents Affecting the Code of Canon Law 1958-1962
Volume V
Canon 973
Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders (S.C. rel., 2 Feb, 1961) pp 452--486
Excerpt pp 468--472
D. THE REQUIRED CHASTITY
29. Importance of this point; young persons are to be properly instructed and warned of its dangers
Among the proofs and signs of a divine vocation the virtue of chastity is regarded as absolutely necessary “because it is largely for this reason that candidates for the ranks of the clergy choose this type of life for themselves and persevere in it.” Consequently:
a) “Watchful and diligent care is to be taken that candidates for the clergy should have a high esteem and love for chastity, and should safeguard it in their souls.
b) “Not only, therefore, are clerics to be informed in due time on the nature of priestly celibacy, the chastity which they are to observe (cf. can 132), and the demands of this obligation, but they are likewise to be warned of the dangers into which they can fall on this account. Consequently, candidates for Sacred Orders are to be exhorted to protect themselves from dangers from their earliest years.”
c. Those to be excluded; practical directives

Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tenencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
5. Very special investigation is needed for those students who, although they have hitherto been free of formal sins against chastity, nevertheless suffer from morbid or abnormal sexuality, especially sexual hyperesthesia or an erotic bent of nature, to whom religious celibacy would be a continual act of heroism and a tryring martyrdom. For chastity, in so far as it implies abstinence from sexual pleasure, not only becomes very difficult for many people but the very state of celibaby and the consequent loneliness and separation from one’s family becomes so difficulty for certain individuals gifted with excessive sensitivity and tenderness, that they are not fit subjects for the religious life. This question sould perhaps receive more careful attention from novice masters and superiors of scholasticates than from confessors since suce natural tendencies do not come out so clearly in confession as iin the common life and daily contact.

________________________________________
This Code of Canon Law was found in The Canon Law Digest, Volume 4, in a local Catholic university library (St. Vincent's, Latrobe PA)

Rich

Some suggest the pedophile crisis had seeds that were planted prior to Vativan II, some evidence seems to bear this out from those who have been removed from the priesthood or those who are dead.
This is not just a post Vatican II problem. It is also not just a liberal problem (although certainly many of the priests like Shanley were liberals and active homosexuals in the homosexual "movement"/subculture)this has affected priests associated with EWTN as well as the more recent failed Society of St. John (beautiful promotional materials)that seem to have pedophilia (actually ebophilia?) and certainly abuse and homosexuality even though they were a Traditionalist, Latin Mass, Latin language, art and culture Catholic order (with some roots in St. Pius the X SSPX Society, related to FSSP with education, and some educational roots, graduates and shared philosophy with Thomas Aquinas College) Trads, Catholics, or anyone else is not immune from sin.
The question in my mind is the more grave sin of pedohilia or even ebophilia abuse that was covered up and done in a serial way. At least the Mega Church of Ted Haggard got rid of him right away and was transparent.
Some securalists and psychiatrists and even church Historians suggest that the pedophilia and homosexuality crisis(es) have been around for the entire of history of the church.
While I was always sympathetic to conservative Catholics it seems just obvious and logical to review and revisit mandatory celibacy and a married priesthood--and no I do not think it is a red flag nor do I think however that it will solve all problems.

Rod Dreher, the so called Crunchy Con (pro-environmental conservative organic foods etc) left the Catholic Church mostly due to the pedophilia crisis and the lies from the Church.
The pedophilia crisis (or even if you want to call it ebophilia) is much larger than we thought, the media may have exagerated it but not by much and it is not the medias fault, their was blame of victims, and Cardinal Law should be in jail not protected in a Church in Rome or at least in a Monastery like Benedict put Marciel in (understanding there is a difference)|

The pedophilia and homosexuality crisis has hurt the Catholic Churche's ability to address cultural questions and be a moral authority especially on issues of human sexuality as well as intention, truth telling and hypocricy.

bill912

"...it seems obvious and logical to review and revisit mandatory celibacy and a married priesthood..."

The so-called "pedophilia" crisis is actually a crisis of homosexual predators. Since when does marriage cure homosexuality?

Rich

The pedophilia crisis is not a crisis exclusively of homosexual predators. There were numerous cases of pre-pubescent boys, even though clearly the majority of the cases were post-pubescent male on male consensual or somewhat consensual (different leverages teacher-student/priest-altar boy) The stories about the cleaning lady (ladies) who found vaseline on altars (go on priests and psychologists websites)are disgusting and known by bishops and other priests and stastically way to high. The number of priests and cases is way to high, higher than the average in society at large as we know it. Moreover, even if the statistic was the same as the society at large average there is two things a) it should be lower for people entrusted to our youth who should be giving and getting supernatural grace (at least supposedly) and b) the number of priests even if not higher, the number of abused children is higher because of the serial abuse eg same abuser many victims.

Bill sounds like the political homosexual community that states that there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Even if that were true there clearly is a link between homosexual priests and pedophilia (and/or ebophilia)

The crisis is not just a crisis of homosexual predators. It is also a crisis of pedophiles. It is also a crisis of priests covering for other priests and Bishops covering for their priests and re-victimizing victims and hiding behind big law firms, lies, and transfering predators for decades. The crisis is one of serious crimes, conspiracy, and lies as well as sexual crimes and sins that go against any Christian or common sense definition.

While marriage will not cure pedohiles nor homosexual predators (like Republican Congressman Foley), married men attracted to the priesthood will or at least could by statistics decrease the number of homosexual priests (by definition) and thus the number of priests who abuse. This has worked well in the Catholic Churches (in full union with Rome) of the Eastern Rite for thousands of years. This does not mean that I agree that celibacy equals sexual perversion, but I do agree that celibacy and specifically the priesthood, for a variety of reasons including a male priesthood and celibacy, has attracted homosexual and abusive priests at a higher rate than they should and the national average. By allowing married men into seminaries you would per se be attracting a different type of male (insofar as they are married). More married Catholic men should definitely mean less homosexual predators.

bill912

"Bill sounds the political homosexual community that states there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia."

Good-bye, Rich.

Sunny in Cali

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Much less a straight.

Nancy Doris

Allowing married men into the priesthood will attract a different type of priest.

The Rose book Goodbye Goodmen (which supports a celibate priesthood) is good primer for the homosexual influence.

east2west.org of Anthony Dragani explains married priests in the Easter rites of the Catholic Church very well including criticisms of a Cardinal's recent book and different canon laws.

Michael

Thank God for Rich if you finally got Bill912 to say goodbye. Bill912 not sure what goodbye means here or if it is a promise or a threat. Your one liners, lack of logic and background information, and your insults to other hurt your position and that of Roman Catholism and conversion. Many of your posts are mean spirited, and your one liners lack the humor of others so are left only with an ignorant bite.
Thank God, Thank Rich, and Thank Bill.
GOODBYE

It is amazing to me that Bill912 and others are blaming the abuse situation on homosexuals. I am not sure what Rich is saying.

This was a case of abusers who cardinals were shifting around and lying to authorities.
You should talk to some of the victims.

bill912

The abusers weren't homosexuals?

Over 4,000 priests were accussed of abuse. Out of 50,000 even assuming some did not do it who were accussed. That is almost 10% much higher than the 1% always qouted by apologists.

Cardinal Law is a criminal who should be in jail.

Some Day

When the abuse of a child of the same-sex is done, it would imply that the abuser is a homosexual. And not just inclined, but in sin too.
So you can blame homosexuals for that.
Now homosexuals aren't the only bad ones.
What about other priests who break the celebacy under the covers?
They should be punished too.
But not by an atheist government.
They should be sent to a monastary and be locked up. Like it used to be in Catholic countries.

Some Day

Not at all, Cardinal Law is innocent.
Trust me on this one. He isn't archpriest by error.
And he would not have weekly conversations with the President and bishops. And he would not be in Fatima if he was.
I give you my word.
If it means anything to you Anon.

Some Day

You don't know the Vatican.
You are just another Catholic in the US.
Not your fault.
Most don't know insider stuff.
You got to hang with the religious orders. They know lots.

Rich

I always liked Cardinal Law, he seemed Orthodox, allowd the Tridentine Mass by indult in Boston, was close to Opus Dei, close to Pope John Paul the II, on the good liberal side he was part of the Civil Rights movement marched with Martin Luther King and took strong public stands for justice for everyone regardless or race specifically African Americans (not an easy thing with racial feelings especially the Irish in Boston, very tribal and lots of conservative bad and good Dems), seemed bright and had interesting ideas on anthropology, and was very pro-life
BUT.....
I am not sure what being archpriest is or means, or why talking to the President or Bishops of every week is relevant, or if you are being sarcastic, or what Fatima has to do with this
BUT....
I have read a lot on this subject and read his letters to Shanley and other priests (who were open homosexuals running homosexual vacation houses and involved in homosexual periodicals and public and well known about it) and his notes thanking them for their service decades after he knew of their abuse, now some will come on, including Law and state that is what they knew about this "disease" at that time and it was the advice of the psychiatrists, BUT THAT DEFIES COMMON SENSE, I was involved in other youth activities at the time and the Boy Scouts were getting rid of abusers in the 80s and still have a policy against active homosexual scout leaders.
Cardinal Bernard Law had KNOWLEDGE and thus acted with intent or at least was negligent. He lacked common sense regardless of what some psychiatrist supposedely advised him. He was worse than the ostrich with his head in the sand but allowed, and encoraged abuse. He may not have been cheering in the sense of the word encouraged but by transferring priests who previously abused, that he knew about it, and put children in harms way again and again and again again means he not only allowed but facilitated it and caused it.
There is certainly and anti-Catholic bias, and a secular media, but many large cities have residual and quasi-Cultural Catholic leanings and Irish Catholic State's/District Attorneys that have overlooked, did not believed, or hushed up many of these issues. The media did us all a service by bringing this into the open because the Church would not deal with it on it's own.
The "aetheistic government" is right in many of these cases (although perhaps not all)and so was the secular media. The Church was wrong. The victims should of been the most important item.
The whole Legionnaires of Christ thing until recently reinforces the culture of the Church that is immoral and needs to be changed.

Cardinal Law should not be given a Church in Rome. He should not be shielded from civil authorities. He should be held accountable in court or he should be put in a monastery doing extreme penance. The children and families who suffered are immense. Dante would put law in a low level of hell.

ruth

Hey Rich,
I am a 'Cruncy Con' and I take issue with that broad statement of yours. In fact you will find that most 'Cruncy Cons' are the ones that are avid promoters of NFP because we feel that God has given us a Natural ability to Plan our families as well as a natural order in our environment that we should respect.
Don't knock the crunchy cons.........
And as for the Pedophilia problem in the Catholic church....
1) priests are human (not an excuse keep reading), in fact even the individuals that make up the magisterium of the Church are human, sinners, which is Pith of the miracle of God working through the Church.
2) Let's just say....better formation...better screening.......more accountability....and better formation again. As much as some of us recoil at the media, the light of truth is the best thing for this situation....let them all be exposed. Glory to God.

In fact I can say that the Catechetical, and vocational formations of our parish's and Seminaries are much to blame for many things. Most Catholics don't even know what Nfp is, or what are the requirments of the Catholic church for Marriage, for the recieving of the sacraments.... on and on it goes. (My husband and I always joke that it is a good thing that we knew what we were getting into when getting married, since our parish priest gave us a compatabilty test and patted us on the head and sent us on our way.)
In fact many priests that I have run into, when I speak to them about NFP say ; "What is that?"
How sad. How can we expect people to be fully involved in our wonderful life of the Church if they never even know what that entails? They don't know what it entails because often priests don't know, don't care or disagree or are too afraid to speak out.
Formation is our biggest crisis...

ruth

By the Rich,
Amen on Cardinal Law. I don't care if one feels (I wish I could put that in italics) that he is a good guy, he let a terrible problem slip through the cracks on his watch... in the very least. It is one thing to be forgiven for your sins, it is another to have a position of power and do a horrible job at it.

Some Day

In spanish we have a term called "mafiando"

They ruined his reputation for being one of the good guys.
The forces that be would have none of his good, old school stuff.
So they armed a mafia against him.
But the Pope and the Vatican knew his innocence so they brought him where no one can hurt him.
But I know you don't care what I say, and untill I bring proof your finge can touch, its hearsay.

I really can't go into further details.

Some Day

And all of you who say Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI are great popes are hypocrites if you say Cardinal Law is being shielded unjustly.
There that is it.
And since like I said, you don't have continous contact with the Vatican, moost of you only know what everyother blogger knows.
But some us aren't.

ruth

Some Day,
Soy latina tambien.
I don't understand why you would call our objection to Cardinal Law 'heresy'.
Being 'Latina' and once firmly connected with all things Opus Dei I was taught to never question priests and Bishops, never to criticize those in Persona Criste. I think there is a time and a place though to do that when so much harm has been done and a blind eye has been turned.
It doesn't matter if Cardinal Law didn't know anything (which I don't think is the case) But he should have had a closer eye on his flock and in the old days they would have sent him to a far away place to pray the rest of his days in solitude.

Some Day

I know the limits on questioning.
Trust me, I go over them on occasions.
But I know personally that Cardinal Law is innocent. It is because of the groups I associate myself with that I know, because they have daily communications with Rome. Forget Opus Dei.
Some newer ones, that are growing imensely, which has been quoted by the Pope as the one among the few he can still count on to be Catholic in all senses of the word. Find out for yourself.
Trust me on this one.
I give you my word. But I can't give you my name.
I am only 16.
Don't discredit me for my age.
I am certainly not a typical 16 year-old (I'll be 17 this Sunday.)
But I am in contact and participate in one of those groups I mentioned. In fact I am a sort of postulant.

Compare the response of the Vatican to Father Marciel of the Legionaries and Cardinal Law.

Vatican-style condemnation, and V-style declaration of innocence.

The Vatican.
The best school of diplomacy for 2006 years and counting.

ruth

Some day
What are you talking about? You have continious contact with the Vatican? But, of course you cannot reveal your sources. Sounds a bit weird to me.

Some Day

Not myself. The religious group I am with, which mantains contact with all the groups in the world.
Want to test it.

The Tridentine mass is in all order to be allowed,
but the Vatican will keep an eye on all new and young priests and orders who use it.
They will not be promoted.


Confirm it in the future. Then come talk.

ruth

Some day,
It seems that you must be in the Lay Consecrate program. Maybe instead of being so convinced that in Regnum Criste lie all of your answers you should buy a year subscription to a quality magazine like Inside the Vatican and go spend a year as an independant missionary in Africa, or Honduras.....

Wrong order still.
Very new.
I barely even know who you are talking about.
Recuerda que soy latino, pues son mas conocidos en el Sur y no en EEUU.

Some Day

Sorry.
I feel like I am bragging.
Not what my intention is.
It is to clarify the name of a prince of the Church, who in this case is innocent.
I know there is much evil in the Church.
There it is not.

ruth

Some Day...
I have always loved the Franciscans, There is a great group of them in Honduras and they need missionaries. They are humble, dedicated to dirty work of prostelizing the poor and feeding them and clothing them. Look them up Franciscan Friars of The Renewal. They also have a group of sisters.
I hope your love for God prospers... that primarily. Church politics, even, often times the heated debates of Theology are not to be mistaken for that love.
God Bless you.

Some Day

Yes I met some Franciscans in Washinton D.C. like about two weeks ago at the National Shrine.
They actually had some young postulants.
Very nice sight. And they wore habits.
That says alot these days.

Some Day

Say a prayer for me please.
My parents really don't want me to enter the seminary with my order.
I know I am only 16, but I could have entered at the Minor Seminary to do High School there 2 years ago already.
So please pray so God's will is done and not ours.

ruth

My neice has been looking for an order to go into and has had a hard time.....sometimes you never know where God will bring you. It is a better question to ask yourselve where you can be most of God's service. There are many orders out there that are faithful to the Church...maybe you have too bleak a view of these things. Beware of those that will say you should join them because everyone else is unfaithful except for them... that is A BAD sign.

Some Day

Definetely.
I knew these people since I was 7 years old.
They were the last ones to think I would want to join. I was awefully fiesty when I met them.
Thats what you get growing up on Powerrangers.
But then I got serious at about 14 about my vocation. And now I know that is definetely what God wants of me. Couldn't see myself happier any other way.
Not that I'm saying other orders aren't faithful.
Definetely not.
Solo que estoy en my charco con ellos. No estaria feliz otro logar. Nadie es feliz si no sigue lo que Nuestra Señora quire de uno.
De que pais eres acaso?

Rich

Ruth, I apologize, I was not trying to make some generalization about Crunchy Cons but only that one main one Rod Dreher (I think he started the term with his manifesto but I could be wrong) left the Catholic Church to the Russian Orthodox Church (in America) mainly because of the pedophile crisis. I am sympathetic to the so called Crunchy Cons but that is not the point of me bringing them up only to point out the point that at least one family and leader of Crunchy Con was very justifiably critical of this crisis and actually left the Church. If I accidently said or you interpreted as something else or more general or more offensive I do apologize.

J.R. Stoodley

Some Day, you seem to be like me, you know you shouldn't say something but you semiconciously try to let people know what it is you're not saying (what order you are in contact with). Beware, it's not a good idea. Just say what you can and leave the rest. I speak from experience.

I speak from experience here too: don't rush into something at a young age. When I was you're age (I'm 21 now) I was convinced God was calling me to be a Franciscan. Later I decided it was Monasticism, perhaps the Trappists. Now I have met a wonderful young woman and am considering marriage. Perhaps my sense of a religious vocation was an illusion based on a desire for holiness and focusing one's life on God. Perhaps not. I don't know where I will end up, but I'm glad I didn't rush into anything right away. Get out and live a little. Date a girl or two, or at least be open to the possibility if God practically throws a girl at you (as was my case). Through all of that strive to grow in prayer and abandonment to God's will.

Perhaps you are called to be a priest in this order. If so and if you remain faithful to God He will guide you to it at the end. Meanwhile some knowledge of the opposite sex and perhaps a secular subject (I'm doing Environmental Biology) could be of great assistence to you in your priestly ministry. I think you owe it to yourself and perhaps to God not to commit yourself to anything while still so young.

J.R. Stoodley

Some Day,

I hope you don't mind my venturing to give you advice. I thought I'd give just one more example.

I have a friend who long has desired to become a priest. He wanted to be a Dominican priest. Like me he didn't rush into anything, but got some more experience of life and the maturity that even a few years brings. Though he went through a period of uncertaintly he today still feels called to the priest and will likely enter seminary next year, but he now feels called to a different, more apostolic order (I forget its name, but it is a smaller one that he hadn't even known about earlier).

Nicholas

Can:
1. One change rites in the Catholic Church (e.g. from the Latin/Roman Rite to let's say Ukrainian Rite or Maronite Rite Catholics)
and than
2. Get married
and than
3. Apply for seminary (and eventually become a priest) if already married and in the/Eastern Rite
and
eventually
4. Be a valid Married and Eastern Rite CATHOLIC priest

(I understand the US ban on US ordinations but that does not prohibit going overseas or to Rome, and the ban seems to be on a parochial and unjust approach from bishop Ireland and others who did not see bearded and married Catholic priests as genuinely Catholic even though they were both technically and substantively incorrect and pastorally unjust. Without going into the ban in the US at least for Carpatho-Rusyn--so called Byzantine Rite--within canon law strictures can one eventually become a Married Eastern Rite Catholic Priest even if he is Latin Rite now)

A second question is to can Eastern Rite priests increasing vocations (assuming not being able to be marriage is an impediment to vocations)do Latin Rite masses (either Novus Ordo, Misa Normative or the so called Tridentine pre-Vatican II 1962 Missal) to fill the supposed shortage of priests and lack of priests and masses and sacramental implementation. (Is this merely having faculties in a different rite for either side?)

Publius

FWIW, I've heard that the Eastern Catholic Churches are very leary of Latin Catholics changing rites to get around the celibacy rule.

Publius

I meant to add that because of that they don't make it easy to change rites and then jump into a seminary and get ordained as a married priest. I also heard (I believe on EWTN's Eastern Catholic forum) that married Eastern priests are not given bi-ritual faculties. This was years ago, though, so maybe my memory is faulty.

but don't Latin Rite priests have bi-ritual faculties

I remember a Jesuit priest who also did some Eastern Rite, I want to say Maronite but I could be wrong, some Middle Eastern

Publius

but don't Latin Rite priests have bi-ritual faculties

Yes.

Eda

http://www.east2west.org/Celibacy.htm

Some good reading

J.R. Stoodley

Anon(or noname or whatever you go by ;-P) I think you may be thinking of Fr. Pacwa from EWTN, who is a Jesuit who in addition to the Latin rite is in the Maronite rite too, doing Maronite Liturgies and all.

I imagine a biritual priest such as him still ultimately falls under either Western or Eastern canon law, and will be under the bishop of only one Church. It would be so confusing any other way. I wonder if it is then possible for an Eastern married priest to for a good reason be given the faculty to celebrate the western Liturgy.

ruth

Some day
Vivo en el EEUU. Pero mi familia es de Sao Miguel, Porto. Y de Mexico.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31