Facebook Was Not Criticized By Archbishop Vincent Nichols

I'm seeing attack after attack on Archbishop Vincent Nichols for his comments about FaceBook and other network community sites. It was amusing at first (seeing everyone criticizing without quoting) but now it's just boring. The first report of his comments that I could find were here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8180115.stm

I didn't really see him directly criticize social network sites. I did see him say, "Facebook and MySpace might contribute towards communities, but I'm wary about it." That's about as close to an attack as the BBC could report—that he is wary of such sites.

His wariness is well founded. For years, social experts have been saying that these transient relationships are bad for society. This is nothing new. Teenage addiction to such pastimes as texting, IMing, and other forms of electronic communication were pointed out long ago, and very few experts have disagreed with the fact that the new social networking fad (it's well beyond the 'fad' stage now) had an isolating effect on people. Studies have even pointed out that networking activities are anti-social by nature.

But no one will talk about that. Instead, they'll point to this one bishop, who is justified in his opinions, and say that the Church is, once again, behind the times. I wonder how we've survived these 2000 years, being so slow to "get with it."

Medjugorje Apparitions Lose More Credibility - Father Tomislav Vlasic Silenced

It looks like another priest who had been the spiritual director of the children in Medjugorje has been given "silence orders" by the Vatican. He had been acting against previous orders when he continued to promote the vision. He is also being investigated for fathering a child with a nun.

Personally, I was always a little skeptical of the apparition. I won't say that this is in any way a nail on the coffin. As a matter of fact, each apparition (and the mystics themselves) have had to go through such trials. The church and the secular world has always tried to silence mystics, and by some grace of God, they have always overcome the doubts.

But I will point out that obedience is one of the true marks of mystics (and their spiritual directors). To me, the legitimacy seems more unlikely when those close to it won't obey the Church. But then again, who's to say that the allegations of disobedience (or those of sexual misconduct) are true.

I guess time will tell. That's another mark of these sort of apparitions. It often isn't until years after the mystics have died that they are approved.

Here's where I first saw the story:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804522.htm

Catholic Bishops Asked To Re-Think Their Stance On ProLife Issues

In a small story in the Inside Higher Ed, Richard A. Yanikoski, president of the association of Catholic colleges, has asked the US bishops to review their stance on allowing schools to honor politicians who believe in murdering children. Here's the link:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/19/qt/catholic_colleges_want_review_of_2004_bishops_statement

I don't understand why these people can't get it.

The bishops could revisit their recommendations a thousand times, but they'd always end up with the same conclusion. We're talking about the Church here, not some human institution that can fall prey to every hair brained agenda that some idiot in higher education wants to promote.

Every now and then, I get this flash in my head, and I really start to grasp just how BAD abortion really is. I find myself living in a world where the most abominable sin is being called a right, and it makes me feel like I'm in some sort of surreal fantasy world.

Anti-Semitic Bishops Get Warning

One of the points I made several months ago, when our pope lifted the excommunication of the anti-Semitic bishop, was that he HAD NOT given that bishop any power. All he had done was allow the bishop to be a part of the church again.

The press couldn't quite see that. They wanted to crucify Pope Benedict for his actions—not considering the fact that the pope was just trying to find a way to help thousands of people come back into the church. People who, we should remember, really WANTED to be in communion with Rome. If you know any traditionalists, then you know how torn they are on the subject.

Now the pope has issued a warning to the bishops not to ordain priests. Here's the story from Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE55G3CD20090617

Let's see if the press has the same type of orgasm it had when the pope lifted the excommunication.

Another Fight For Married Priests

We have another round of news stories hoping to change the fact that priests cannot marry. This time, it was all started by the story of Father Alberto Cutié, who was caught with a woman. No real big story here—there was just some priest who got had a weakness for the ladies (I would say most do—it's just that he let it get the better of him).

Anyway, reporters are trying to find some scandal in this incident. But to criticize men for being with women seems a little below them. Instead, they're attacking the celibacy rule. I can't count how many headlines I've seen on the subject. For example, US News & World Report ran a poll to see if Catholics thought their priests should be allowed to marry.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/05/11/poll-should-the-catholic-church-lift-celibacy-requirements-for-priests.html

Dan Gilgoff had the good sense to get some Catholic expertise to weigh in on the subject. Ha ha—a Notre Dame professor of theology. That's good. Especially right before their scandal hits (Obama is speaking there this Sunday).

What I really want to figure out, is what their objective is. Normally, I'd say they just want to show everyone how the Church is wrong, and they're right. But I'm really starting to wonder… could they have the audacity to think they're going to rock the Church? I mean after all the wining they did over the condoms comment from Pope Benedict, I realized that they actually thought some doctrine was going to change. Maybe now, they're trying to settle for some of the less concrete traditions of the Church.

These people—when they gonna' learn?

2 New Women Priests

Patricia Fresen, a self proclaimed Catholic bishop, ordained two women in Roxborough, Philadelphia as priests in the Holy Catholic Church. In other news, I'm looking for someone to take over my position here as Mayor of Cleves Village, so that I can be sworn in as president of Australia. My good friend, John Smith, will be presiding over the Australian ceremony.

Really folks… get a clue.

At least the reporter, David O'Reilly, somewhat looked into the real Catholic stance on this issue. I found the story here:

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20090426_Risking_heresy_to_serve_as_priests.html

Of course, the real problem was in his title. These women are not RISKING heresy. They are heretics.

Oh well. BTW – I'm also going to be sworn in as American Vice President two months from now, so I'll let you all know how that turns out.

Obama Crowned With Thorns

There's a lot happening this week. Apparently, Obama is named the new messiah, as a painting to be unveiled on the 29^th this month will depict him with outstretched arms wearing a crown of thorns. You can read the whole story here:

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96138

I don't think I even have to point out the sacrilegious idea being portrayed here. But I did want to talk about something I've been putting off.

A lot of my friends, family, and fellow bloggers have begun to think that maybe Obama is the antichrist. With a story like this, it's not too hard to believe.

But I just don't think the antichrist will be like this. I haven't heard too many speeches by the man (I try to avoid listening to him). I have read quotes, often ones from news casters who are salivating at his feet. I really don't hear him saying anything profound. I mean he's not the kind of person I'd describe as 'inspiring'.

Obama is part of a fad. He's a sensation. But it's not he himself that is sensational. He represents a movement towards liberal ideas, but by himself he is nothing. I don't think that's what the antichrist will be like. I think the antichrist will tempt even great Christians to follow him… because he himself will evoke a sort of inspiration and pride.

Obama—no, he's just a guy who was in the right place at the right time. The kind of anti-religious pictures mentioned in the story above (this is only one of many) are created by anti-religious artists. He's not turning people away from religion, he's gathering the people who are already against religion. Including the millions of people who identify themselves as Catholics but aren't really Catholic at all.

I would repeat something I said in an earlier post: Lines Are Being Drawn!

We're not really preparing for battle. Maybe we will soon. But for now we're making it clear who is on whose side. The Church is beginning to awaken from the long sleep. The shepherd is calling the flock. Are you a lamb or a wolf?