Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 9:05pm

Res & Explicatio for A.D. 4-29-2009

Salvete AC readers!

Here are today’s Top Picks in the Catholic world:

1. Since the passing of Father Richard John Neuhaus, the FIRST THINGS journal has gone through some changes that have enhanced their image.  The mysterious Spengler joined FIRST THINGS as Associate Editor and outed himself in his Asia Times column as David P. Goldman.  Then Elizabeth Scalia, who was once as mysterious as Spengler, with her popular political-Catholic blog The Anchoress joined FIRST THINGS as well.  Not to mention that prior to these two fine additions FIRST THINGS also initiated their very own blog a few months back.

2. David P. Goldman, a.k.a. Spengler, writes an intriguing article on how Israel can reconcile it’s Jewishness with a liberal democracy and how this correlates with the West and its march towards secularism.  Mr. Goldman has this prescient conclusion to this article:

Defenders of the West democracies should take a deep interest in the outcome of what might seem to be arcane legal matters in Israel. Pushed to its extreme conclusion, the secular liberal model will exclude the sacred and the traditional from public life. Of all the things sacred in the thousands of years of pre-history and history that inform Western Civilization, surely Judaism and the Jewish people are the oldest and arguably the most pertinent to the character of the West. Eroding the Jewish character of Israel is an obsession of the secular project, precisely because the Jewish people in their Third Commonwealth in the Land of Israel have such profound importance for the Christian West.

For the article click here.

3. A very disturbing story coming from the Diocese of Savannah where Bishop John Kevin Boland is preventing an orthodox Catholic, Robert Kumpel of the very well written St. John’s Valdosta Blog, from attending any Mass in his diocese.  Bishop John Kevin Boland is doing so in conjunction with a lawsuit leveled against by another layperson to Mr. Kumpel so as to prevent him from investigating allegations of multiple abuses by diocesan officials.  In other words it seems that Bishop Boland is frantically covering something up, but we don’t know what that is because of a restraining order on Mr. Kumpel who was attempting to investigate this.

Bishop John Kevin Boland is the ecclesiastical equivalent of a Catholic politician who is personally opposed to abortion but publicly for it.  For example, Bishop John Kevin Boland is personally orthodox, but ecclesiastically heterodox in his application of Church teaching.  Such as Archbishop Donald Wuerl of the Archdiocese of Washington where he is known for his personal orthodoxy but is lacking in applying it in his pastoral and management style.

For the article click here.

For more background information click here, here,  here, and here.

4. Homeschooling seems to be experiencing a growth spurt as more and more families turn to this in place of pricey private and Catholic schooling.  An article from the Houston Chronicle has a nice story of one families experience.

For the article click here.

5. Here is another wonderful article on the return of the Gregorian Rite Mass, a.k.a. the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite Mass, in Springfield, IL titled, “Mass trend: Latin making a comeback locally”.

For the article click here.

6. For the last Res & Explicatio click here.

7. If you want more Catholic news click here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
26 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
S.B.
S.B.
Wednesday, April 29, AD 2009 11:43am

Does anyone know if Elizabeth Scalia is related to THE Scalia?

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, April 29, AD 2009 11:45am

S.B.,

I’ve been wondering that myself. I can only “assume” she isn’t since I haven’t casually come across any mention of this, but there could still be a connection.

blackadderiv
blackadderiv
Wednesday, April 29, AD 2009 12:03pm

Does anyone know if Elizabeth Scalia is related to THE Scalia?

None of Scalia’s kids are named Elizabeth, so while’s it’s possible, the relation would have to be more distant.

Zak
Zak
Wednesday, April 29, AD 2009 12:30pm

It seems inappropriate to report the Savannah story without hearing the bishop’s side. Your source is the disgruntled party.

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, April 29, AD 2009 12:33pm

Zak,

I understand your concern, but if the bishop is forbidding a layperson from attending Mass anywhere in his diocese, that is news to me. Especially knowing the upstanding character of Mr. Kumpel.

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, April 29, AD 2009 1:36pm

Mr. DeFrancisis,

Discussions that deviate from the topic will not be tolerated. Please address the post or don’t comment at all.

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, April 29, AD 2009 1:50pm

Mr. Henry Karlson,

Discussions that deviate from the topic will not be tolerated. Please address the post or don’t comment at all.

Matt McDonald
Matt McDonald
Wednesday, April 29, AD 2009 2:05pm

Zak,

the letter from the bishop’s lawyer states explicitly the reason he is violating his office by denying the sacraments to a Catholic. It is because of pending litigation. This is completely contrary to canon law:

Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

Tito Edwards
Wednesday, April 29, AD 2009 2:50pm

B.A.,

Thanks for clearing that on Elizabeth Scalia. It would have been a neat story if she were a sister of the Supreme Court Justice though.

Henry Karlson
Wednesday, April 29, AD 2009 3:23pm

VATICAN CITY (CNS) — The Vatican newspaper said President Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office have not confirmed the Catholic Church’s worst fears about radical policy changes in ethical areas.

The comments came in a front-page article April 29 in L’Osservatore Romano, under the headline, “The 100 days that did not shake the world.” It said the new president has operated with more caution than predicted in most areas, including economics and international relations.

“On ethical questions, too — which from the time of the electoral campaign have been the subject of strong worries by the Catholic bishops — Obama does not seem to have confirmed the radical innovations that he had discussed,” it said.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901955.htm

So much for “the most extreme” — the Vatican doesn’t think so.

Dan
Dan
Wednesday, April 29, AD 2009 4:06pm

Number 3 is very upsetting, and I encourage those who are also upset to contact both the Bishop, and his attorney.

Dale Price
Dale Price
Wednesday, April 29, AD 2009 4:57pm

Well, the CNS article quotes a whole 120 words from the original article, so it’s difficult to say what kind of judgment is involved. If it were me, I’d prefer to see the actual article before making ultramontanist declarations about what “the Vatican” thinks, but de gustibus.

Just 2 notes: First, the moderate ESCR guidelines are simply draft regulations subject to comment and modification. I’d reserve judgment on that point until they become finalized, and after the intensive lobbying by ESCR proponents is finished. Moreover, even in draft form, they authorize solicitation of embryos for research from those who avail themselves of IVF. That’s a non-negligible moral problem, and potentially large loophole for mischief.

Second, the excellent pregnancy support legislation is the laudable creation of pro-life Democrats, not the President.

Donna V.
Donna V.
Wednesday, April 29, AD 2009 5:10pm

“None of Scalia’s kids are named Elizabeth.”

Scalia is Elizabeth Scalia’s married name – she’s of Irish descent. If she is related to the Supreme Court justice (I’ve read her blog for quite a while now, and she’s never mentioned a connection), it would be by marriage, not blood.

S.B.
S.B.
Thursday, April 30, AD 2009 7:23am

Well, if she had indeed married into the Scalia family, I can well imagine that she might not be bragging about the connection . . . Justice Scalia no doubt wouldn’t want the usual nasty leftists digging around her blog for something with which to discredit him by association.

S.B.
S.B.
Thursday, April 30, AD 2009 7:42am

So actually, now that I think about it, never mind.

awakaman
awakaman
Thursday, April 30, AD 2009 9:37am

Ah yes, the Anchoress, the noble defender of Rudy Gulianni and apologist for his pro-abortion and pro-gay stands, at least when he was heir apparent to the Republican nomination.

http://www.firstthings.com/theanchoress/2008/04/29/rudy-novak-etc-cont/

Another we must put our Republicanism above our Catholicism Catholic.

awakaman
awakaman
Thursday, April 30, AD 2009 9:48am

Another wonderful pro-Rudy article by the Anchoress:

http://www.firstthings.com/theanchoress/2008/01/28/rudy-giuliani-not-endorsed/

A wonderful addition to First Things.

Michael J. Iafrate
Thursday, April 30, AD 2009 10:02am

Another we must put our Republicanism above our Catholicism Catholic.

Exactly.

Tito Edwards
Thursday, April 30, AD 2009 11:03am

Michael I.,

On this point I completely agree.

Elizabeth Scalia defending the pro-abort Rudy Giuliani is inexcusable. I don’t have any time to waste reading her Repulicanist propaganda.

S.B.
S.B.
Thursday, April 30, AD 2009 11:41am

Michael — someone who uses the word “heterosexism” to describe the Church’s position on marriage is living in a glass house . . . .

Ah yes, the Anchoress, the noble defender of Rudy Gulianni and apologist for his pro-abortion and pro-gay stands, at least when he was heir apparent to the Republican nomination.

Learn to look at dates. That blog posting was from April 29, 2008. Giuliani was not the “heir apparent,” he had dropped out 3 months earlier. And she defended Giuliani only in the sense that she thought he could still take communion.

S.B.
S.B.
Thursday, April 30, AD 2009 11:44am

Anyway, it’s funny seeing guys who voted for Obama pretending to be upset that “the Anchoress” might have endorsed a personally pro-choice candidate.

Tito Edwards
Thursday, April 30, AD 2009 11:47am

Inexcusable.

Voting for Obama is simply inexcusable and reveals the depth of his Catholicism which is shallow.

awakaman
awakaman
Thursday, April 30, AD 2009 12:23pm

SB:

Who I voted for or whether I voted at all is my business. . .suffice it to say I did not vote for Obama.

Secondly, please do not embarrass yourself by stating the Achoress was not a rabid supporter of Rudy Gulianni just on the Rudy G. link on the left side of her website. The woman salavates over him so much its embarassing.

S.B.
S.B.
Thursday, April 30, AD 2009 12:57pm

OK, I was just talking about Michael Iafrate, who did vote for Obama.

Zak
Zak
Friday, May 1, AD 2009 1:26pm

In the 13th century, the Pope placed an interdict on England forbidding any sacraments (except, I believe, baptism and annointing of the sick) there. Bishops may apply an interdict to individual persons as well, which is like an excommunication in terms of access to sacraments but without expulsion from the Catholic community. The bishop’s actions may have been justified under Canon 1373.

trackback
Friday, May 8, AD 2009 3:14pm

[…] 8.  For the last Res & Explicatio click here. […]

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top