An excellent article from Spike.

Check out: The curious rise of anti-religious hysteria It is the Anglo-American cultural elites’ insecurity about their own values that encourages their frenzied attacks on religion.

This article by Frank Furedi, self described as “a secular humanist who is instinctively uncomfortable with zealot-like moralism” really makes some salient points about cultural elitism and its venomous anti-Christian mantra.

Mr. Furedi is the author of Politics of Fear: Beyond Left and Right.

Since I’ve been in the mood for good Catholic/Christian films I recently purchased Come to the Stable and The Miracle of the Bells. Both arrived today so I’ll be sitting down to watch them tonight.

Miracle of the Bells is among my all time favorites.

A beautiful young Polish woman from a poor coal mining town in Pennsylvania makes it to Hollywood. She is screen tested and chosen as the lead in Joan of Arc. Her Catholic faith and purity shine through. At the conclusion of the production she dies of black lung disease.

Her manager, who loves her, played by Fred MacMurray, brings her body back to Pennsylvania. Her last wish was that the church bells be rung for her at her funeral. Concurrently he finds out that the film she made is going to be canned. Frank Sinatra plays the young parish priest —“ a fine looking Polish boy if I don’t say so myself!

The movie is sad and glorious. It shows the power of miracles of the heart and the power of dedicated love. On a secondary level it is an ode to all those who are poor, work hard, have deep faith, and are far more complex than the elites would have us believe.

As the IMDB says:

This film was also made in the days of John L. Lewis as head of the United Mine Workers. One of the big issues for that union was the pollution that caused the premature deaths of a lot of their members and families. In that sense Miracle of the Bells was a very socially relevant movie for its time and even today.

I think we can all agree with that. If you’ve never seen it check it out. If you have watch it again.

I read of this while perusing the Remnant Newspaper. I like the Remnant for its critical eye toward modernism. I especially agree with their calling to mind what many ‘conservative’ Roman Catholics engage in these days —“ papolatry (pope worship —“ hey he’s the pope, what he says must be true, and isn’t he nice, great, kind, loving, always smiling).

Anyway, before I go off on a rant, I would love your perspective on this.

It does in fact make me sick to think that such a thing is even being considered. Now I love intellectual debate as much as the next cleric, but this stuff just supports the evil of the age. There is no God, there is no right and wrong (just do what makes you feel good —“ and don’t hurt anyone), there is no evil, and people cannot possibly knowingly participate in or make evil choices.

Judas the Misunderstood
From Richard Owen, in Rome for the Times of London

Vatican moves to clear reviled disciple’s name

JUDAS ISCARIOT, the disciple who betrayed Jesus with a kiss, is to be given a makeover by Vatican scholars.

The proposed —rehabilitation— of the man who was paid 30 pieces of silver to identify Jesus to Roman soldiers in the Garden of Gethsemane, comes on the ground that he was not deliberately evil, but was just —fulfilling his part in God’s plan—.

Christians have traditionally blamed Judas for aiding and abetting the Crucifixion, and his name is synonymous with treachery. According to St Luke, Judas was —possessed by Satan—.

Now, a campaign led by Monsignor Walter Brandmuller, head of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Science, is aimed at persuading believers to look kindly at a man reviled for 2,000 years.

Mgr Brandmuller told fellow scholars it was time for a —re-reading— of the Judas story. He is supported by Vittorio Messori, a prominent Catholic writer close to both Pope Benedict XVI and the late John Paul II.

Signor Messori said that the rehabilitation of Judas would —resolve the problem of an apparent lack of mercy by Jesus toward one of his closest collaborators—.

Yes, yes, Jesus is all merciful —“ we can all agree on that. But His mercy has a requirement, conversion and repentance.

He told La Stampa that there was a Christian tradition that held that Judas was forgiven by Jesus and ordered to purify himself with —spiritual exercises— in the desert.

Of course the Gospels differ. But I like this one…

In scholarly circles, it has long been unfashionable to demonise Judas and Catholics in Britain are likely to welcome Judas’s rehabilitation.

Father Allen Morris, Christian Life and Worship secretary for the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, said: —If Christ died for all —” is it possible that Judas too was redeemed through the Master he betrayed?— The —rehabilitation— of Judas could help the Pope’s drive to improve Christian-Jewish relations, which he has made a priority of his pontificate.

Looks like under Anglican auspices England has become the new Las Vegas —“ anything goes. I’m OK, you’re OK; there is no sin. Thanks Gene Robinson and the rest of the heretics. For my part I believe what happens in England should stay in England.

Some Bible experts say Judas was —a victim of a theological libel which helped to create anti Semitism— by forming an image of him as a —sinister villain— prepared to betray for money.

In many medieval plays and paintings Judas is portrayed with a hooked nose and exaggerated Semitic features. In Dante’s Inferno, Judas is relegated to the lowest pits of Hell, where he is devoured by a three-headed demon.

The move to clear Judas’s name coincides with plans to publish the alleged Gospel of Judas for the first time in English, German and French. Though not written by Judas, it is said to reflect the belief among early Christians —” now gaining ground in the Vatican —” that in betraying Christ Judas was fulfilling a divine mission, which led to the arrest and Crucifixion of Jesus and hence to man’s salvation.

Perhaps someone at the Vatican has a financial interest in the book? No, that couldn’t be true.

Mgr Brandmuller said that he expected —no new historical evidence— from the supposed gospel, which had been excluded from the canon of accepted Scripture.

But it could —serve to reconstruct the events and context of Christ’s teachings as they were seen by the early Christians—. This included that Jesus had always preached —forgiveness for one’s enemies—.

Lets be exact here —“ not forgiveness, but love and prayer.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matt. 5:43-48)

Oh, and by the way, its a little hard to write a gospel while you’re hanging from a tree with your guts spilling out on the ground. Now, on with the article

Some Vatican scholars have expressed concern over the reconsideration of Judas. Monsignor Giovanni D’Ercole, a Vatican theologian, said it was —dangerous to re-evaulate Judas and muddy the Gospel accounts by reference to apocryphal writings. This can only create confusion in believers.— The Gospels tell how Judas later returned the 30 pieces of silver —” his —blood money— —” and hanged himself, or according to the Acts of the Apostles, —fell headlong and burst open so that all his entrails burst out—.

Some accounts suggest he acted out of disappointment that Jesus was not a revolutionary who intended to overthrow Roman occupation and establish —God’s Kingdom on Earth—.

In the Gospel accounts, Jesus reveals to the disciples at the Last Supper that one of them will betray him, but does not say which. He adds —Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.—

But he also —” according to St Matthew —” acknowledged that Judas had a divine function to fulfil, saying to him during the arrest, —Friend, do what you are here to do— and adding that —the prophecies of the Scriptures must be fulfilled—.

The —Gospel of Judas—, a 62-page worn and tattered papyrus, was found in Egypt half a century ago and later sold by antiquities dealers to the Maecenas Foundation in Basle, Switzerland.

Michael J. Natt, publisher of The Remnant had this to say:

The following article, published under the title “The Priest and the Present Crisis in the Church”, was written by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (RIP) and appeared as a Remnant exclusive in June, 1972. In the wake of the mind-blowing news out of Rome this week that the Vatican’s Pontifical Committee for Historical Science has proposed some sort of bizarre process of —rehabilitation— for Judas Iscariot (no, I’m not making it up! [full story]), it seems somehow apropos to revisit the predictions of universal ecclesial crisis that Archbishop Lefebvre was warning against some 35 years ago. As the Vatican embarks on this surreal quest to recast in a more favorable light the betrayer of our Savior and the one whom Christ Himself said would have been better off had he never been born, three things become clearer: 1) A reprieve for Catholics longing for an end to this 40-year nightmare is evidently not in the offing; 2) The need for traditional Catholic resistance to this Modernist madness is greater now than ever before; 3) A significant number of the Catholic hierarchy have taken leave of their Catholic senses.

I found an excellent article, Who owns the Church (sic) written by Thomas Szyszkiewicz at the Epiphany Blog.  Mr. Szyszkiewicz is a Catholic journalist. This is a good addition and follow on to my Catholic Church Is Dealt a Blow in Asset Dispute post. One of the items in the article I found most humorous was:

In 1911, the Sacred Congregation for the Council (now the Congregation for the Clergy) told the bishops of the United States that they did not like the corporation sole model all that well and preferred the method of parish corporation, where each individual parish is separately incorporated in the state.

Among the methods which are now in use in the United States for holding and administering church property, the one known as Parish Corporation is preferable to the others, but with the conditions and safeguards which are now in use in the State of New York. The Bishops therefore should immediately take steps to introduce this method for the handling of property in their dioceses, if the civil law allows it. If the civil law does not allow it, they should exert their influence with the civil authorities that it be made legal as soon as possible. Only in those places where the civil law does not recognize Parish Corporations, and until such recognition is allowed, the method commonly called Corporation sole is allowed, but with the understanding that in the administration of ecclesiastical property the Bishop is to act with the advice, and in more important matters with the consent, of those who have an interest in the premises and of the diocesan consultors, this being a conscientious obligation for the Bishop in person. (Quoted in New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, 2000, New York, Paulist Press, page 1457.)

The New York model the Congregation favored is one where the state has written into law recognition of Roman Catholic parishes and the authority of the bishop over them. The law there allows for two lay trustees to be named to the corporate board, but those trustees serve at the pleasure of the bishop, thus avoiding the whole trusteeism question. But that is not the case in many states.

Making the changes

Unfortunately, not many bishops listened to that directive. It’s only been in recent years that some dioceses have been making the civil changes necessary to reflect canon law.

It is funny because, if this is accurate, many U.S. Bishops have been ignoring Vatican opinion on this issue since at least 1911.  This again goes to the point in my original posting, you reap what you sow. 

The article also discusses the St. Stanislaus situation in St. Louis as it is pertinent.  As my readers may know, I have commented heavily on this situation.

In the ‘if you live by the sword you die by the sword’ category:

Catholic Church Is Dealt a Blow in Asset Dispute
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL – December 31, 2005; Page A3

A federal bankruptcy-court judge in Portland, Ore., ruled Friday that the Catholic archdiocese there can’t shield the sale of parish assets from compensation claims made by victims of sexual abuse by priests.

In a decision that could have national ramifications, Judge Elizabeth Perris found that sex-abuse victims, who have filed about 100 outstanding claims with potential damages of at least $300 million, may seek compensation from assets including parish churches and schools within the diocese.

While a victory for abuse victims, the decision represents a blow not only for the diocese but also for Catholic parishioners in Portland and across the country who are trying to protect church properties and bank accounts from liquidation.

Ruling in the bankruptcy case of the Portland archdiocese, the judge denied the diocese’s claim that its extensive real-estate holdings—”valued from $400 million to $600 million—”shouldn’t be available to pay creditors’ claims because they are held in trust for the parishes as beneficiaries. The diocese contended that victims should only be entitled to diocesan possessions, valued at around $19 million, including the bishop’s residence and chancery.

Although the diocese said that the question should properly be decided under canon, or church law, the judge wrote, “Who owns the property is, quite simply, not a theological or doctrinal matter.”

The judge is right and you’ve entered his realm.  The title to all church property in every diocese in the United States is held in the name of the Bishop Ordinary only.  He is the sole trustee for the diocese, the parish, and for any and all assets.  He can do what he sees fit with the assets as long as it is in keeping with Canon Law.  It’s been that way since the 3rd Council of Baltimore (1884).  From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

[The] Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884), in its decrees on the subject of church property, urges the bishops to place all church property under the protection of legal incorporation, where it can be done safely, as in the State of New York; where such incorporation cannot be made it requests the bishop to have himself made a corporation sole and thus hold the property as any other corporation would; and where this cannot be done it permits him to hold the property in fee simple” (Rev. J. M. Farley, now Archbishop Farley, in “The Forum”, June, 1894).   

People just keep thinking, ‘hey, this is my church.’  No, sorry, it is not and never was.  It is one of the reasons that the PNCC broke away from the Roman Catholic Church.  It is why the Bishop can close your parish.  He doesn’t need that white-wash committee of laity and a few nuns.  They are there only as a faí§ade.  If the Bishop says so, it is so.  Only the Roman Pontiff or his delegated authority in the Curia can overrule your Bishop.

Back to the WSJ article:

The judge also rejected the argument of the Portland diocese’s 390,000 Catholics, who were named a separate defendant class, that civil law would bar the diocese from selling assets against parishioner wishes. “Under civil law, the parishes and high schools are not separate civil legal entities,” Judge Perris found.

A written statement issued by the diocese said: “We feel strongly that this decision is not supported by the facts or the law, and believe it infringes on Archdiocese’s right and the parishioners’ rights to freely exercise their religion. We will review our options to appeal.”

Sure, but the civil court will look at the documentary evidence.  Who holds title to the property?  It is the Bishop as CEO and trustee for the corporation —“ i.e., the diocese.

He is in effect ‘the diocese.’  The Church is certainly the body of Christ in all its constituent members.  However, the church (small ‘c’ meaning its physical belongings) has nothing to do with the members.

When the Church subjects itself to the civil courts you will get a civil court verdict.  Did you expect an ecclesiastical decision based on Canon Law from the United States Bankruptcy Court?  You are not dealing with the Rota.

As you appeal, the decision takes a higher level of precedence.  It goes from a decision applicable in the Federal District to one applicable in the Circuit and eventually, if taken to the Supreme Court, applicable nationwide.

Although Judge Perris’s decision and a similar ruling by a bankruptcy-court judge in Washington state in August aren’t binding on judges in other jurisdictions, they are expected to influence cases cropping up across the country that also deal with control over church assets.

Catholics in Boston, New York and elsewhere are fighting the closings of their parishes by contending that they, rather than the diocese, have control over churches, schools, bank accounts and other assets. These internal battles have become so heated that the St. Louis archdiocese recently excommunicated leaders of one parish who refused to turn over assets to the bishop, a subject of a page one Wall Street Journal article on Dec. 20.

Abp. Burke in St. Louis had to beg St. Stan’s for its $10 million because by act of a Bishop 125 years ago the property was deeded to the parish council, not the Bishop.  Thanfully these people saw what was coming and said no.  Abp. Burke wants it one way, Portland and Spokane want it another way.  The R.C. Church and its bishops look like keystone cops.  Where’s the USCCB?  Shouldn’t the bishops speak with unanimity on issues?  Not in the United States! 

Each is in charge of his personal fiefdom.  Each feels completely separated from the center.  Each proclaims the strength and unity of the Church and —Ex Ecclesia Nulla Salus— (Outside the [Roman Catholic] Church there is no salvation), all the while each chooses his own way.  Who may/may-not receive the Eucharist, will I follow the Church’s rules on homosexuality and seminary life, and whatever else (architecture, music, liturgy, inclusive language..).

The poor Roman Catholic faithful are faced with an episode of cognitive dissonance.  Their bishops say one thing, but do another.

Another federal bankruptcy judge sided against the Spokane, Wash., diocese in a similar bankruptcy ruling in August. The Spokane bishop has appealed.

David Skeel, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, said that the Portland ruling hurts parishioners nationwide who contend that dioceses cannot close churches or take assets on their own. “What this opinion confirms is that the archdiocese is in charge, with respect to the property,” he said. He added that the decision is likely to unsettle parishioners by making clear that parishioners will ultimately pay for the abuse scandal. “Even if…the priest was never in their parish, they still pay the price,” he said.

Yep!

From the Associated Press

Two stations won’t air ‘Book of Daniel’

NEW YORK — Two television stations are refusing to broadcast a new NBC series about an Episcopal priest who abuses painkillers, has a gay son, a promiscuous straight son, a daughter who deals marijuana, and a wife who drinks too much.

Conservative Christian groups have condemned the depiction of Jesus as blasphemous, accusing the writers of portraying Christ as tolerant of sin in talks with the priest.

…

The series stars Aidan Quinn as the Rev. Daniel Webster, who discusses his many troubles in regular chats with a robe-wearing, bearded Jesus. The American Family Association, in Tupelo, Miss., and Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs group led by James Dobson, are asking supporters to lobby their local NBC affiliate to drop the show.

…

But the American Family Association said the series was another sign of NBC’s “anti-Christian bigotry.” Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, an anti-defamation group, called the series the “work of an embittered ex-Catholic homosexual.”

The show’s creator and executive producer, Jack Kenny, said he drew on the emotionally guarded family of his male partner for the series. He said his goal was to depict how “humor and grace” help a flawed man struggle with his faith and family. He said the writers never meant to mock religion or Jesus.

However, Bob Waliszewski, of Focus on the Family’s teen ministries, said the show portrayed Christ as a “namby-pamby frat boy who basically winks at every sin and perversity under the sun.”

Just the kind of Jesus it would appear that many in the ECUSA advocate for?  Listen to this:

James Naughton, a spokesman for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, D.C., said a California Episcopal church is advising the series.

Naughton has read scripts for eight episodes and acknowledged that viewers could take away a troubling message about people of faith, instead of a positive one about overcoming temptation. Still, he said it was “a tremendous opportunity for evangelism for Episcopalians.” The Washington Diocese has started a blog to comment on the show and invite discussion.

“To me, this is good for us no matter how it comes out because if people are talking about what Episcopalians are like, it creates tremendous opportunities for us to say, `Here’s what we actually are like,'” Naughton said.

And the answer would be —“ yes. 

I think Mr. Naughton has become trapped in a Machiavellian milieu.  Unfortunately for him the ends do not justify the means.  A good intention cannot sanctify, or make right, an action which is wrong.

Now, I will leave to my readers who are better versed in the Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae to argue whether ‘double effect’ allows bad actions for good causes.  However, in this case the point would be moot.

If I am correct, a bad act is morally allowable only when the following conditions are fulfilled:

1. The agent is aiming only at the good effect; the evil effect is not one of his ends, nor is it a means to his ends; and
2. the consequences of the act are good on balance; that is, the goodness of the good effect outweighs the evil of the evil effect.

As I said, act and cause are a good theological discussion, but moot here because I suspect the agent (writers, director, producer) of not seeking to portray the Jesus of the Gospels, but the phony Jesus of man’s basest instincts.  In addition, there is no good consequence to the show (especially in supporting the ECUSA drive to remake historic Christianity into a modernist playground).  Further, the consequences of continually making Jesus into the kind, dead, philosopher only support man’s denial of God.  It destroys the human imperative to repentance and reform.