Over the weekend the office was reconfigured and desks were reassigned. The goal was to modify the seating arrangements to make for a more efficient use of space.
This morning one colleague sitting near me asked if I was going to be able to tolerate working among so many foul-mouthed people. She described herself as a "potty-mouth" (her term) and rattled off the names of a few other people in the vicinity who are known for using earthy language.
The irony here is that this was a response to my reputation for not using obscenities. Abstaining from naughtiness is my crime; not once have I been involved in an ugly exchange where I put a finger in the face of these particular individuals for their scurrility. The potty-mouth phenomenon is common even in professional places of employment these days, so I stand out by virtue of never indulging. I work with people who earn their living as consultants whose job it is to be aware of what others want and need, and they've generally picked up on the fact that I don't share their language or laugh at their ribald jokes; as a rule they usually refrain when I am present. It helps that I have a reputation for doing good work and being a team player. They normally like my jokes too.
This isn't to say that I've never corrected anyone. I was the chap who said that the use of certain repugnant word is comparable to the use of a certain racial epithet. I'm even prepared to back up the comparison if put to the test. A few more harassing remarks like the one I received this morning, in fact, and that might just come to pass.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Marriage Revisited
What worked for the ordinary form of the Mass will work for Marriage too
An interview with His Eminence, Cardinal Altus Malum, Secretary for the Conciliar Reform of the Institution of Marriage
Maps, Keys, and Clocks wishes to express its thanks to the Office of Reform of the Institution of Marriage for allowing this transcript to be printed.
MAPS, KEYS, AND CLOCKS: Your Eminence, thank you for granting this interview.
CARDINAL ALTUS MALUM: I was gratified to accept your invitation. The reforms of the Office require careful explanation to be correctly understood and implemented.
MKC: I am certain that is so. Updating the form of a Sacrament must be a great challenge. Do you find it so?
CAM: Indeed, very much so. There are quite a great many old notions covering the topic that must be swept away like so much dust. But it is all part of the duty of the cleaning that comes with the new springtime. We live in a brave new world of progress and improvement, and the journey forward requires we make way for the exciting possibilities of tomorrow.
MKC: I would think that would make for very engaging work. And those who do it must be erudite individuals.
CAM: That adjective is indicative of a non-strategic mindset; we prefer to say “informed.” And to be informed requires that one be aware of the latest trends and developments so as to ride the whirlwind and direct the storm. It is a dynamic time in which to live.
MKC: How do you approach the task, Your Eminence? How is a Sacrament of the Church updated?
CAM: As a preliminary, remember that authority is based in consensus. With so many people in the world today who are informed and educated and capable of holding their own opinions, there is no longer a need to rely on an autocrat to tell them what to think and say and do. My colleagues and I seek to manifest that simple truth in the activities associated with the new rite of marriage.
MKC: I notice you said “activities” and not “rituals.”
CAM: It is pleasing to see that you noticed the distinction. This change of language is key to the program of reform. Actions follow our thoughts, and a new way of living follows from a new way of thinking. For instance, you will recall that in the old form of marriage, the couple being wed actually stood at the front of the Church with their backs to the audience. This example more than any other reinforced the passé notion of a top-down order to the events, one that relegated onlookers to a non-participatory and secondary role.
MKC: Perhaps the “audience” might have said that they thought it proper that the couple being married was placed in a position and posture of prominence, what with it being their wedding day and the reason everyone had gathered.
CAM: If they’d been taught to blindly accept what they were told, then they might have said as much, of course. And here you have demonstrated well one of the endemic challenges of the sophomoric mindset that my Office is attempting to correct. What matters here is conformity with the new and popular way of looking at things. Uncritical adherence to outmoded mental constructs stands in the way of the new freedoms that await those who are eager and bold enough to seek them.
MKC: I have no desire to seem sophomoric, but please pardon the candor of my next question. You have said that you place chief emphasis on conformity to contemporary modes of thought and expression, but it would also appear that you fault people like myself as being sophomoric for our adherence to a previous mode. Is there a contradiction?
CAM: To answer your question, young grasshopper, let me put a question to you. By people, do you mean only the plebeian crowd, or do you mean the phenomenon of fully actualized men who recognize the organized complexity towards which the universe is evolving?
MKC: Two standards, to be sure, and your Eminence demonstrates insight by distinguishing between them. Please allow me this follow-up question: how can you maintain that you represent a popular outlook on the issues of the day before your ideas have become popular among the plebeian crowd?
CAM: It is a source of great anguish that my Office attempts to generously aid and help people who are incapable of truly appreciating what is being done for them! We are misunderstood and maligned by reactionary conformists and integrists; they cannot grasp the sublimity of what we are about. But we move forward anyway, knowing what is best for them, educating them about the benefits they will receive if they quietly trust their leaders, ostracizing and quarantining the few obstinate and opinionated recalcitrants.
MKC: That’s a grave responsibility to take on, don’t you think, Your Eminence?
CAM: If Providence had not intended the people to yield to the direction of their shepherds, He would not have likened them to sheep, no?
MKC: So you are critical of a top-down order when it comes to the old rituals, and yet you insist that the laity do as they are told when it comes to the new activities. Is this not a contradiction?
CAM: No, I think not. The men of the old hierarchy were conformist autocrats. Our Office, however, is enlightened and beneficent.
MKC: To the uninformed this might seem like an arbitrary distinction. How do you safeguard against the possibility of corruption?
CAM: Your meaning is unclear. The vast majority of the Church’s bishops support or tolerate the new agenda. Where is the possibility of corruption?
MKC: I crave your pardon, Your Eminence, but is there not at least a risk of corruption in any merely human endeavor? And with the new ideas subject to constant refinement and change based on current trends in thought that are often at odds what the historical Catholic Faith, is there not a risk that the ideas themselves are not worthy of fidelity? Is there not at least the possibility that without reference to an external objective measure, people are merely reinforcing one another in a self-indulgent delusion so as to avoid being labeled obstinate and recalcitrant by their peers?
CAM: Indulgent? Yes, I see you are still indulging in the old way of thinking. Even if there were such a thing as an external objective measure, how could our limited subjective minds ever comprehend or even approach it? Your concept is improbable. And as long as the people who still attend church sit docile and content in the pews and make no great fuss, how likely is it that there is corruption? A moment ago I thought you showed promise, but now I see that you still do not understand the evolving ways of our Office. How distasteful and sad.
MKC: But I think I begin to understand more of it now. Allow me to return to a matter you mentioned earlier, when you said it was undesirable for the wedding couple to stand with its back to the audience. What is the desirable alternative?
CAM: A wedding is a public and corporate act, and the structure of the events should reflect this. In the new order of activities, the couple sits on a comfortable couch and faces the audience. In this way two life partners invite the entire community to be witness to their public profession of love.
MKC: How is this couch situated? Does it rest at the end of the aisle?
CAM: Oh of course not, it takes the place of the altar. This necessitated the invention of a new type of altar on wheels – progress once again! – that can be readily moved out of the way at need for the new wedding ceremony.
MKC: An altar on wheels?
CAM: One enterprising parish actually built a sofa into the back of its altar, so that instead of wheeling the altar offstage, they would just spin it around.
MKC: That must have been quite a memorable sight. And so from this sofa the couple pronounces its wedding vows?
CAM: Not at all! We have dispensed with vows and other medieval eccentricities. No, the couple makes a public profession of their love and affection in a form that best suits their personalities and cultural heritage, or lack thereof. We leave it to the artistic spirit of each couple, but we encourage unique and heart-felt expressions of their mutual regard. For example, one groom whose ancestry included indigenous peoples crafted a papier-mâché cow head filled with candy that he broke open with a broomstick to signify the sweet life he and his partner would have together.
MKC: I recall hearing about that wedding – the blindfolded groom lost his grip on the stick and nearly hit the bride in the head.
CAM: I say, that is too bad! You mustn’t focus on the insignificant transitory aspects! The important consideration is that he was acting in an original way that was true to his heart and to his character. That was the beauty of the moment! The young woman was unhurt – in fact, when her turn came, she played a recording of herself reciting a poem of her own invention:
The poor little clown-
The one with a frown:
What he thought was a hat
Was really a cat.
Yes, you’re better off dead
Than with a cat on your head!
MKC: She actually had that played in public?
CAM: Indeed! It was a private joke between the two of them, and making it public helped turn the event into a truly personal and memorable one. A wedding should be a celebration, one that everyone will remember with fondness and talk about to the end of their days. Is it not so in your view?
The reporter dropped his pen at this point. After he somewhat regained his composure, the interview continued.
MKC: Forgive me. Now, after the couple makes a mutual exchange of their…personal creations…what comes next?
CAM: Then, my young fellow, the audience is invited to introduce their own contributions. It is all part of the communal aspect of the day, you see. Naturally, we encourage creativity and spontaneity. Remarks, toasts, testimonials, gifts, reminders, taunts, all that and more.
MKC: Um…fifty years from now, suppose a man wanted to try a marriage as you’ve described today as a way of manifesting an appreciation for his own cultural heritage. What do you envision would be said to him?
CAM: In that time the changes would have been further modified in ways we could never begin to imagine just now. If a nostalgic fellow were to inquire about the wedding activities you and I know today, someone would point out that nobody else is asking for them and tell him he should quit wasting everyone’s time. And speaking of time, I am afraid ours has run its course.
MKC: Thank you, Your Eminence.
CAM: Naturally.
An interview with His Eminence, Cardinal Altus Malum, Secretary for the Conciliar Reform of the Institution of Marriage
Maps, Keys, and Clocks wishes to express its thanks to the Office of Reform of the Institution of Marriage for allowing this transcript to be printed.
MAPS, KEYS, AND CLOCKS: Your Eminence, thank you for granting this interview.
CARDINAL ALTUS MALUM: I was gratified to accept your invitation. The reforms of the Office require careful explanation to be correctly understood and implemented.
MKC: I am certain that is so. Updating the form of a Sacrament must be a great challenge. Do you find it so?
CAM: Indeed, very much so. There are quite a great many old notions covering the topic that must be swept away like so much dust. But it is all part of the duty of the cleaning that comes with the new springtime. We live in a brave new world of progress and improvement, and the journey forward requires we make way for the exciting possibilities of tomorrow.
MKC: I would think that would make for very engaging work. And those who do it must be erudite individuals.
CAM: That adjective is indicative of a non-strategic mindset; we prefer to say “informed.” And to be informed requires that one be aware of the latest trends and developments so as to ride the whirlwind and direct the storm. It is a dynamic time in which to live.
MKC: How do you approach the task, Your Eminence? How is a Sacrament of the Church updated?
CAM: As a preliminary, remember that authority is based in consensus. With so many people in the world today who are informed and educated and capable of holding their own opinions, there is no longer a need to rely on an autocrat to tell them what to think and say and do. My colleagues and I seek to manifest that simple truth in the activities associated with the new rite of marriage.
MKC: I notice you said “activities” and not “rituals.”
CAM: It is pleasing to see that you noticed the distinction. This change of language is key to the program of reform. Actions follow our thoughts, and a new way of living follows from a new way of thinking. For instance, you will recall that in the old form of marriage, the couple being wed actually stood at the front of the Church with their backs to the audience. This example more than any other reinforced the passé notion of a top-down order to the events, one that relegated onlookers to a non-participatory and secondary role.
MKC: Perhaps the “audience” might have said that they thought it proper that the couple being married was placed in a position and posture of prominence, what with it being their wedding day and the reason everyone had gathered.
CAM: If they’d been taught to blindly accept what they were told, then they might have said as much, of course. And here you have demonstrated well one of the endemic challenges of the sophomoric mindset that my Office is attempting to correct. What matters here is conformity with the new and popular way of looking at things. Uncritical adherence to outmoded mental constructs stands in the way of the new freedoms that await those who are eager and bold enough to seek them.
MKC: I have no desire to seem sophomoric, but please pardon the candor of my next question. You have said that you place chief emphasis on conformity to contemporary modes of thought and expression, but it would also appear that you fault people like myself as being sophomoric for our adherence to a previous mode. Is there a contradiction?
CAM: To answer your question, young grasshopper, let me put a question to you. By people, do you mean only the plebeian crowd, or do you mean the phenomenon of fully actualized men who recognize the organized complexity towards which the universe is evolving?
MKC: Two standards, to be sure, and your Eminence demonstrates insight by distinguishing between them. Please allow me this follow-up question: how can you maintain that you represent a popular outlook on the issues of the day before your ideas have become popular among the plebeian crowd?
CAM: It is a source of great anguish that my Office attempts to generously aid and help people who are incapable of truly appreciating what is being done for them! We are misunderstood and maligned by reactionary conformists and integrists; they cannot grasp the sublimity of what we are about. But we move forward anyway, knowing what is best for them, educating them about the benefits they will receive if they quietly trust their leaders, ostracizing and quarantining the few obstinate and opinionated recalcitrants.
MKC: That’s a grave responsibility to take on, don’t you think, Your Eminence?
CAM: If Providence had not intended the people to yield to the direction of their shepherds, He would not have likened them to sheep, no?
MKC: So you are critical of a top-down order when it comes to the old rituals, and yet you insist that the laity do as they are told when it comes to the new activities. Is this not a contradiction?
CAM: No, I think not. The men of the old hierarchy were conformist autocrats. Our Office, however, is enlightened and beneficent.
MKC: To the uninformed this might seem like an arbitrary distinction. How do you safeguard against the possibility of corruption?
CAM: Your meaning is unclear. The vast majority of the Church’s bishops support or tolerate the new agenda. Where is the possibility of corruption?
MKC: I crave your pardon, Your Eminence, but is there not at least a risk of corruption in any merely human endeavor? And with the new ideas subject to constant refinement and change based on current trends in thought that are often at odds what the historical Catholic Faith, is there not a risk that the ideas themselves are not worthy of fidelity? Is there not at least the possibility that without reference to an external objective measure, people are merely reinforcing one another in a self-indulgent delusion so as to avoid being labeled obstinate and recalcitrant by their peers?
CAM: Indulgent? Yes, I see you are still indulging in the old way of thinking. Even if there were such a thing as an external objective measure, how could our limited subjective minds ever comprehend or even approach it? Your concept is improbable. And as long as the people who still attend church sit docile and content in the pews and make no great fuss, how likely is it that there is corruption? A moment ago I thought you showed promise, but now I see that you still do not understand the evolving ways of our Office. How distasteful and sad.
MKC: But I think I begin to understand more of it now. Allow me to return to a matter you mentioned earlier, when you said it was undesirable for the wedding couple to stand with its back to the audience. What is the desirable alternative?
CAM: A wedding is a public and corporate act, and the structure of the events should reflect this. In the new order of activities, the couple sits on a comfortable couch and faces the audience. In this way two life partners invite the entire community to be witness to their public profession of love.
MKC: How is this couch situated? Does it rest at the end of the aisle?
CAM: Oh of course not, it takes the place of the altar. This necessitated the invention of a new type of altar on wheels – progress once again! – that can be readily moved out of the way at need for the new wedding ceremony.
MKC: An altar on wheels?
CAM: One enterprising parish actually built a sofa into the back of its altar, so that instead of wheeling the altar offstage, they would just spin it around.
MKC: That must have been quite a memorable sight. And so from this sofa the couple pronounces its wedding vows?
CAM: Not at all! We have dispensed with vows and other medieval eccentricities. No, the couple makes a public profession of their love and affection in a form that best suits their personalities and cultural heritage, or lack thereof. We leave it to the artistic spirit of each couple, but we encourage unique and heart-felt expressions of their mutual regard. For example, one groom whose ancestry included indigenous peoples crafted a papier-mâché cow head filled with candy that he broke open with a broomstick to signify the sweet life he and his partner would have together.
MKC: I recall hearing about that wedding – the blindfolded groom lost his grip on the stick and nearly hit the bride in the head.
CAM: I say, that is too bad! You mustn’t focus on the insignificant transitory aspects! The important consideration is that he was acting in an original way that was true to his heart and to his character. That was the beauty of the moment! The young woman was unhurt – in fact, when her turn came, she played a recording of herself reciting a poem of her own invention:
The poor little clown-
The one with a frown:
What he thought was a hat
Was really a cat.
Yes, you’re better off dead
Than with a cat on your head!
MKC: She actually had that played in public?
CAM: Indeed! It was a private joke between the two of them, and making it public helped turn the event into a truly personal and memorable one. A wedding should be a celebration, one that everyone will remember with fondness and talk about to the end of their days. Is it not so in your view?
The reporter dropped his pen at this point. After he somewhat regained his composure, the interview continued.
MKC: Forgive me. Now, after the couple makes a mutual exchange of their…personal creations…what comes next?
CAM: Then, my young fellow, the audience is invited to introduce their own contributions. It is all part of the communal aspect of the day, you see. Naturally, we encourage creativity and spontaneity. Remarks, toasts, testimonials, gifts, reminders, taunts, all that and more.
MKC: Um…fifty years from now, suppose a man wanted to try a marriage as you’ve described today as a way of manifesting an appreciation for his own cultural heritage. What do you envision would be said to him?
CAM: In that time the changes would have been further modified in ways we could never begin to imagine just now. If a nostalgic fellow were to inquire about the wedding activities you and I know today, someone would point out that nobody else is asking for them and tell him he should quit wasting everyone’s time. And speaking of time, I am afraid ours has run its course.
MKC: Thank you, Your Eminence.
CAM: Naturally.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Marxists With Rosaries
Source
Below is the review I wrote recently on Amazon.com for The Catholic Worker Movement (1933-1980): A Critical Analysis.
If you're interested in the subject of Catholic views of economics, then avoid anything coming from Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin, or the CWM. What a horrible mess those people made!
=======
"The Catholic Worker Movement (1933-1980): A Critical Analysis" by Carol Byrne is a well-researched analysis of the writings and activities of the two founders of the Catholic Worker Movement, Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin.
I approached the book with the understanding that Day was a dupe for the Communists -- and it was a role she didn't particularly mind playing: she struck me as a mole with one good eye. She misidentified the source of many of the world's woes (liberal capitalism with its materialism yes, but not original sin, which would have implicated herself and her comrades as well) and so adopted incorrect remedies (liberation theology; agrarian reform; bolshevism -- materialist creeds all, a fact that she managed to reliably overlook in her efforts to overthrow capitalism). I gave Day credit for intending well, but not for having the wherewithal to completely overcome her radical Communist past. I read Byrne's offering to see how well that postulate held up under closer scrutiny.
The author provides numerous examples that illustrate how the truth was far sadder than I suspected. Byrne thoroughly demonstrates that Day maintained a radicalism steeped in Marxist thought: she was a Communist who became a Catholic, but rather than repudiate her old erroneous ideas, she set about to create a synthesis between the two contradictory creeds. It was an oil and water mix steeped in false pretenses, one in which the Catholic element lost out almost every time to Marxist angst.
To wit, Day and Maurin:
* were nurtured on a Socialist ideology,
* campaigned with active Communists and their travelers,
* unfailingly supported Communist teachings and activities,
* attended conferences organized by Communists in the USSR,
* promoted Communist writings and propaganda,
* advocated worker strikes that were started by Communist-infiltrated unions,
* denigrated cash given by capitalists but accepted it willingly from socialists,
* defended the use of violence and class warfare to achieve joint ownership of property and the forcible redistribution of wealth,
* maintained a posture of hatred for Western democracy and admiration for Leninist and Stalinist totalitarianism,
* weakened the West in its defense against Communist aggression in the name of pacifism,
* praised Garibaldi in Italy, Castro in Cuba, and Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam -- men who used armed force to brutalize and murder their enemies,
* refused guidance from orthodox Catholic clerics, and
* re-interpreted the Gospels and papal encyclicals to support their radicalism.
Hats off to Carol Byrne for providing the documentation needed to provide the correct context and background for a more complete understanding of the CWM.
Below is the review I wrote recently on Amazon.com for The Catholic Worker Movement (1933-1980): A Critical Analysis.
If you're interested in the subject of Catholic views of economics, then avoid anything coming from Dorothy Day, Peter Maurin, or the CWM. What a horrible mess those people made!
=======
"The Catholic Worker Movement (1933-1980): A Critical Analysis" by Carol Byrne is a well-researched analysis of the writings and activities of the two founders of the Catholic Worker Movement, Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin.
I approached the book with the understanding that Day was a dupe for the Communists -- and it was a role she didn't particularly mind playing: she struck me as a mole with one good eye. She misidentified the source of many of the world's woes (liberal capitalism with its materialism yes, but not original sin, which would have implicated herself and her comrades as well) and so adopted incorrect remedies (liberation theology; agrarian reform; bolshevism -- materialist creeds all, a fact that she managed to reliably overlook in her efforts to overthrow capitalism). I gave Day credit for intending well, but not for having the wherewithal to completely overcome her radical Communist past. I read Byrne's offering to see how well that postulate held up under closer scrutiny.
The author provides numerous examples that illustrate how the truth was far sadder than I suspected. Byrne thoroughly demonstrates that Day maintained a radicalism steeped in Marxist thought: she was a Communist who became a Catholic, but rather than repudiate her old erroneous ideas, she set about to create a synthesis between the two contradictory creeds. It was an oil and water mix steeped in false pretenses, one in which the Catholic element lost out almost every time to Marxist angst.
To wit, Day and Maurin:
* were nurtured on a Socialist ideology,
* campaigned with active Communists and their travelers,
* unfailingly supported Communist teachings and activities,
* attended conferences organized by Communists in the USSR,
* promoted Communist writings and propaganda,
* advocated worker strikes that were started by Communist-infiltrated unions,
* denigrated cash given by capitalists but accepted it willingly from socialists,
* defended the use of violence and class warfare to achieve joint ownership of property and the forcible redistribution of wealth,
* maintained a posture of hatred for Western democracy and admiration for Leninist and Stalinist totalitarianism,
* weakened the West in its defense against Communist aggression in the name of pacifism,
* praised Garibaldi in Italy, Castro in Cuba, and Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam -- men who used armed force to brutalize and murder their enemies,
* refused guidance from orthodox Catholic clerics, and
* re-interpreted the Gospels and papal encyclicals to support their radicalism.
Hats off to Carol Byrne for providing the documentation needed to provide the correct context and background for a more complete understanding of the CWM.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Prayer for a Humble Servant
Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Prayer for the Canonization of His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
O Jesus, Eternal High Priest, who deigned to elevate Thy faithful servant Marcel Lefebvre to the episcopal dignity and to grant him the grace of being a fearless defender of the Holy Mass, of the Catholic Priesthood, of Thy Holy Church, and of the Holy See, of being a courageous apostle of Thy Kingdom on earth, of being a devoted servant of Thy holy Mother, and of being a shining example of charity, of humility and of all virtues; bestow upon us now, by his merits, the graces we beseech of Thee, so that, assured of his powerful intercession to Thee, we may one day see him elevated to the glory of the altar. Amen.
After Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, 11/29/05 - 3/25/91
Prayer for the Canonization of His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
O Jesus, Eternal High Priest, who deigned to elevate Thy faithful servant Marcel Lefebvre to the episcopal dignity and to grant him the grace of being a fearless defender of the Holy Mass, of the Catholic Priesthood, of Thy Holy Church, and of the Holy See, of being a courageous apostle of Thy Kingdom on earth, of being a devoted servant of Thy holy Mother, and of being a shining example of charity, of humility and of all virtues; bestow upon us now, by his merits, the graces we beseech of Thee, so that, assured of his powerful intercession to Thee, we may one day see him elevated to the glory of the altar. Amen.
After Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, 11/29/05 - 3/25/91
Tolkien Reading Day
Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Since 2003, March 25 has been the Tolkien Society's Tolkien Reading Day.
Read more here.
Since 2003, March 25 has been the Tolkien Society's Tolkien Reading Day.
Read more here.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Guidance on Charitable Giving
Guidance on Charitable Giving
From the Bishops of North Dakota
Catholics are compelled by the Gospel to responsibly promote the protection of human life, families, and the common good. We applaud the charitable giving and social justice efforts of our parishes, Catholic schools, and individuals. At the same time, we urge attentiveness to the possibility of endorsing an organization whose mission or affiliation may be morally objectionable or, at least, questionable. We call upon pastors, clergy, and the lay faithful to use guidelines based on the virtue of prudence and justice when making charitable giving decisions.
Church teaching: All human life is sacred and must be protected. This is why we should not support or endorse individuals and organizations that provide, promote, or advocate for abortion, contraception, “reproductive rights/ family planning,” or embryonic stem cell research. Marriage, a lifelong partnership between a man and a woman, is the foundation of the family and, therefore, essential to the common good. Accordingly, we should not support individuals and organizations that seek to redefine marriage or whose activities devalue its importance.
Guidelines: When evaluating the appropriateness of participating in, publicizing, or otherwise providing support to a fundraising effort, Catholic entities should consider whether the mission and activities of the organization are consistent with Catholic teaching, particularly as it pertains to human life and marriage. Church facilities should not be used to promote, endorse, or fundraise for such organizations if their policies are contrary to Church teaching.
We take this opportunity to mention certain organizations that Catholic entities should not support.
American Association of University Women: AAUW's stated mission is to advance “equity for women and girls through advocacy, education, philanthropy, and research” and often provides local scholarships with money raised through book fairs. AAUW, however, strongly supports abortion rights and same-sex “marriage,” and opposes parental choice in education.
Amnesty International: In 2007, Amnesty International abandoned its neutral stance on abortion and adopted a pro-abortion position.
Crop Walk/Church World Service: CROP Walk, an annual hunger awareness and fundraising effort that benefits many local food pantries, is sponsored by Church World Service (CWS), an agency of the National Council of Churches. Catholic Relief Services withdrew its name from the list of funding recipients since some of the partners of CWS support the provision of contraceptives in their overseas missions and programs and CRS could not guarantee that donations, particularly Catholic donors who have earmarked their contribution to those efforts consistent with Church teaching, would not be utilized for objectionable services.
March of Dimes: The March of Dimes' focus is the prevention of birth defects, premature birth, and infant mortality. March of Dimes, however, also supports embryonic stem cell research, preimplantation diagnosis for untreatable conditions, and mandatory contraceptive coverage for insurance plans.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure: This anti-breast cancer organization is known for its “Race for the Cure” fundraising activities (not to be confused with “Relay for Life.”) Money raised at these events has gone to Planned Parenthood and the organization refuses to acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer.
UNICEF: The Holy See suspended an annual symbolic contribution in 1996 due to the “shift in UNICEF activities” that were once solely focused on child welfare but now includes contraceptive and abortion services.
†Most Rev. Paul A. Zipfel
Bishop of Bismarck
†Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila
Bishop of Fargo
From the Bishops of North Dakota
Catholics are compelled by the Gospel to responsibly promote the protection of human life, families, and the common good. We applaud the charitable giving and social justice efforts of our parishes, Catholic schools, and individuals. At the same time, we urge attentiveness to the possibility of endorsing an organization whose mission or affiliation may be morally objectionable or, at least, questionable. We call upon pastors, clergy, and the lay faithful to use guidelines based on the virtue of prudence and justice when making charitable giving decisions.
Church teaching: All human life is sacred and must be protected. This is why we should not support or endorse individuals and organizations that provide, promote, or advocate for abortion, contraception, “reproductive rights/ family planning,” or embryonic stem cell research. Marriage, a lifelong partnership between a man and a woman, is the foundation of the family and, therefore, essential to the common good. Accordingly, we should not support individuals and organizations that seek to redefine marriage or whose activities devalue its importance.
Guidelines: When evaluating the appropriateness of participating in, publicizing, or otherwise providing support to a fundraising effort, Catholic entities should consider whether the mission and activities of the organization are consistent with Catholic teaching, particularly as it pertains to human life and marriage. Church facilities should not be used to promote, endorse, or fundraise for such organizations if their policies are contrary to Church teaching.
We take this opportunity to mention certain organizations that Catholic entities should not support.
American Association of University Women: AAUW's stated mission is to advance “equity for women and girls through advocacy, education, philanthropy, and research” and often provides local scholarships with money raised through book fairs. AAUW, however, strongly supports abortion rights and same-sex “marriage,” and opposes parental choice in education.
Amnesty International: In 2007, Amnesty International abandoned its neutral stance on abortion and adopted a pro-abortion position.
Crop Walk/Church World Service: CROP Walk, an annual hunger awareness and fundraising effort that benefits many local food pantries, is sponsored by Church World Service (CWS), an agency of the National Council of Churches. Catholic Relief Services withdrew its name from the list of funding recipients since some of the partners of CWS support the provision of contraceptives in their overseas missions and programs and CRS could not guarantee that donations, particularly Catholic donors who have earmarked their contribution to those efforts consistent with Church teaching, would not be utilized for objectionable services.
March of Dimes: The March of Dimes' focus is the prevention of birth defects, premature birth, and infant mortality. March of Dimes, however, also supports embryonic stem cell research, preimplantation diagnosis for untreatable conditions, and mandatory contraceptive coverage for insurance plans.
Susan G. Komen for the Cure: This anti-breast cancer organization is known for its “Race for the Cure” fundraising activities (not to be confused with “Relay for Life.”) Money raised at these events has gone to Planned Parenthood and the organization refuses to acknowledge the link between abortion and breast cancer.
UNICEF: The Holy See suspended an annual symbolic contribution in 1996 due to the “shift in UNICEF activities” that were once solely focused on child welfare but now includes contraceptive and abortion services.
†Most Rev. Paul A. Zipfel
Bishop of Bismarck
†Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila
Bishop of Fargo
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
SSPX mission in India
The French SSPX web site LaPorteLatine produced this video about the SSPX mission in Palayamkottai, India.
See http://en.gloria.tv/?media=138104
See http://en.gloria.tv/?media=138104
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
