Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

Calumny in the Blogosphere

 Calumny in the Blogosphere | Rev. Michael P. Orsi | Homiletic & Pastoral Review

Calumnious blogging is a serious offense against God's law. Those who engage in it are jeopardizing their immortal souls and the souls of others.

Calumny is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary (1992) as a “false statement maliciously made to injure another’s reputation.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) places calumny as a serious sin under the Eighth Commandment, “Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” The Catechism states, “He becomes guilty of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them” (2447). The Catechism notes that calumny offends “against the virtues of justice and charity” (2479).

Calumny and its close relative detraction (derogatory comments that reveal the hidden faults or sins of another without reason) have been part of life since the dawn of time. But opportunities for breaking the Eighth Commandment have proliferated with the advent of the Internet, especially since the rise of the phenomenon known as “blogging.” “Blog” is one of those punchy little contractions we live with today, an example of the technological shorthand so beloved in our culture of email and text messaging. A blog (short for “weblog”) is a personal website or online journal. Blogs perform a variety of communication functions, combining elements of both private conversation and broadcasting, usually incorporating a forum for interactive discussion.

Blogs are vehicles of global self-expression, something unprecedented in the history of human discourse. They are a means by which the average person—with creativity, initiative and the investment of time—can reach limitless numbers of readers anywhere in the world. They elevate the marketing presence of entrepreneurs and small companies to levels that used to be attainable only by major corporations. And they have transformed journalism, breaking the monopolies of resource and licensure that once restricted entry into the world of mass communications.

Read the entire article...

Pope Benedict asks for prayers for his U.S. visit

From the Vatican Information Service:

VATICAN CITY, 13 APR 2008 (VIS) - At midday today, following the Regina Coeli prayer, Benedict XVI reminded the thousands of faithful gathered in St. Peter's Square that on Tuesday 15 April he will travel to the U.S.A. where he will visit Washington, New York and the headquarters of the United Nations.

"With the various groups I shall meet", he said in English, "my intention is to share our Lord's word of life. In Christ is our hope! Christ is the foundation of our hope for peace, for justice, and for the freedom that flows from God's law fulfilled in His commandment to love one another".

The Pope also asked people to pray for the success of the visit, "so that it may be a time of spiritual renewal for all Americans".

By the way, the Aggie Catholics blog has put together a very thorough list of Catholic and non-Catholic blogs, websites, and news sources for the Pope's visit.

Are you a very good at reading and writing Latin?

No? Neither am I. But at least we try, I hope, to avoid making these sort of grandis, difficilis mistakes, (see, I told you) as exposed by Dr. Ed Peters.

I'm agreeing (gulp!) with The New York Times (gasp!) about Benedict's visit

Or, more precisely, with what the Gray Lady says about the unhelpful way the Pope's visit will be covered by some in the media. Peter Steinfels, in a piece titled, "Pope Is Coming, as Is Clichéd Coverage in the Media" (Mar 29th), makes some excellent observations:

What is surprising about every papal visit, at least after 1965, when Paul VI addressed the United Nations, is what so many people find surprising. Each time they are surprised, for example, that the pope hasn’t abandoned the notion that all human lives, even in their earliest, embryonic phases, deserve protection and that therefore abortion is wrong.

They are similarly surprised that many American Roman Catholics honor the pope yet disagree with papal positions, whether about using contraception, restricting legal access to abortion, ordaining married men or women to the priesthood, or recognizing same-sex relationships.

This kind of disagreement may signal, as some argue, a severe crisis in church authority. Or it may be more of a norm throughout Catholic history than is widely realized. But whatever it is, it is not new.

Quite right. And:

Of course, part of the problem in getting a fix on Benedict is simply the feebleness of accepted categories for understanding any serious religious leaders — and hence the impulse to deal with them as celebrities or politicians. Of all the words he speaks during his trip here, the ones that will probably go least examined are no doubt the ones he treasures most, the words of the Mass.

Or, as I wrote a couple of days ago: "Let's put it bluntly: for large swaths of the population, if you aren't an actor, musician, athlete, entertainer, or celebrity, you really aren't that important or memorable." I dare say, that pertains to large swaths of the media. Perhaps we get the media we deserve. Or we simply accept what the media has to serve. Whatever the case, there are, I fear, going to be far too many stories that will "report" about the media's reaction to media-created stereotypes soaked up by people who trust the media for 99.9% of their information. Such stories will miss the importance of what the Pope says and does—and why he will say it and do it:

But the pope is not just another spiritual guide or priest. He has enormous institutional powers and responsibilities. To what extent does Benedict conceive of his papacy as a work of prayer and teaching? To what extent does he conceive of it as a renewal of structures and institutions? How does he see those aspects interacting?

His trip to the United States will presumably provide some clues. But they will be missed if it is greeted and framed with all the ready-made reflexes.

Well said. Mollie Hemingway of GetReligion.org comments on the same piece.

There are, as you might know, several Catholic blogs that will covering the Pope's visit in great detail, as well as the media coverage of the visit. Here are some that I'll be following:

• "Benedict in America", moderated by Christopher Blosser
• "Pope2008", moderated by Tim Drake of National Catholic Register
• "The American Papist," operated by Thomas Peters
• "USCCB's Papal Visit Blog"

And, of course, this blog will offer witty banter, deep insights, revelatory observations, and otherwise indispensable fodder for thought about the Holy Father's visit. But you probably suspected as much already.

Congratulations to Steve and Janet Ray, and everyone else...

... who worked on the Apostolic Fathers: Handing on the Faith video (now available from Ignatius Press), the seventh edition of the "Footprints of God" series. That film has been awarded first place in the religion/spirituality category of the Telly Awards. Details on Steve's Catholic-Convert blog.

• Read my recent interview with Steve about the making of the "Footprints of God," and watch a clip from Apostolic Fathers.

www.Pope2008.com

Tim Drake, the indefatigable writer and reporter for National Catholic Register, is at the helm of Pope2008.com, the Register's website/blog keeping track of preparations for Pope Benedict XVI's visits to the U.S. and Australia. Be sure to check it out.

Breaking: Archbishop Burke excommunicates priestettes

UPDATE: Speaking of Dr. Ed Peters, as I do below, he has some commentary on the "In The Light of the Law" blog about Archbishop Burke's decision.

Saint Louis Catholic has the goods:

Archbishop Burke has declared the excommunications of would-be priestesses Rose Hudson and Elsie McGrath, and also of pretend-bishop Patricia Fresen.

This decree, linked here [PDF file], declares as follows:

1) that McGrath, Hudson and Fresen have incurred the censure of excommunication latae sententiae for the crime of schism (cann. 1331, 1364 s. 1);

2) that upon McGrath, Hudson and Fresen is imposed the ferendae sententiae censure of interdict for the crime of pertinacious rejection of a truth of the faith after admonition by the Ordinary (can. 1371, para. 1); and,

3) that upon Fresen is imposed the ferendae sententiae censure of excommunication for the crime of simulation of the sacrament of Holy Orders (can. 1379).

Read the entire post, which has helpful definitions.

Many in the MSM, I'm certain, will try to turn the priestettes in question into warm, cuddly victims who merely want to fulfill the call that God has supposedly given them, but who are now being persecuted and demonized by nasty, mean male bishops. In which case, you might want to learn a bit more about what excommunication is about. My 2006 interview with canon lawyer Dr. Ed Peters should be helpful:

IgnatiusInsight.com: Do you have a simple definition of "excommunication"?

Peters: Yes. Excommunication is the most serious censure the Catholic Church imposes on her members. Excommunication has roots deep in ecclesiastical history, and it is still applied, in fact increasingly applied, today. But it's more than a penalty for past actions; it's really an urgent call to reform one's conduct in the future. Excommunication is classified as a "medicinal penalty" by the Church precisely because its main purpose is to bring about reform in the individual. Having certain actions punished by excommunication demonstrates that certain actions are gravely wrong in themselves and cause deep harm both to their perpetrators and to others.

Read the entire interview. Also:

• Women and the Priesthood: A Theological Reflection | Jean Galot, S.J.
• A Jesuit argues that the Church needs priestettes (Jan. 30, 2008)
• A report on the Priestette and her fake "Mass" (Nov. 19, 2007)
• Can priestettes understand simple English? (Sept. 28, 2007)

Excellent interview with Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., about...

...a number of topics, especially the liturgy and education. It was posted yesterday by Adam Raha on the "Sober Inebriation" website. A snippet:

Q: Initially and even now, the Holy Father received both copious amounts of criticism and praise (more heavy on the former than the latter) on the issue of Summorum Pontificum - why do you think it was such a polarizing document and do you see any relationship between it and the false sense of a 'spirit of Vatican II' so to speak that Benedict has alluded to often?

A: Well, I don't fully understand this, but it certainly has been the case that in the past there has been a huge resistance to anything which would restore all or part of the old Mass. There's also huge resistance to saying the new Mass, the Novus Ordo, facing east, which is perfectly legitimate. The bishop does not have the authority to prohibit the celebration of the Novus Ordo in Latin - in terms of his actual authority. In terms of what actually happens of course, bishops imposed their will on this, going beyond their own authority.

But why is there such hostility toward Latin and the Mass celebrated facing East? I believe that there are people who thought the Council was a call to massive change from a sclerotic church, and they think that if you restore the old Mass, or say the new Mass facing east, you're repudiating the Council. But this is completely false. However, these people have spent the last 30-40 years of their lives committed to this vision of the Council which is not a vision of continuity but a vision of rupture. Their whole lives are being called into question. So, there's enormous resistance to this (the motu proprio). This is the reason why the pope had to do the motu proprio. It's quite possible to say the Novus Ordo in ways that are very traditional, but today, it's simply taboo.

Definitely read the entire interview.

Fr. Fessio goes on to talk a bit about the influence of the Enlightenment on the liturgy:

This liturgy (the Novus Ordo) is really a Cartesian rationalistic liturgy that instead of the dark, the mysterious, the sacred, and the opaque, even bewildering that elicits awe and wonder, it's become didactic. It's supposed to be easily understood, in your own language, a celebration of community, a form of entertainment- this is all part of the enlightenment project. It's working out its conclusions over time.

It brings to mind the best book I've ever read on this issue (the influence of Enlightenment-era philosophy on the Church's liturgy), which is The Mass and Modernity: Walking to Heaven Backwards (Ignatius, 2005) by Fr. Jonathan Robinson, who had this to say in my December 2005 interview with him:

What I have tried to do in my book is to step outside this ecclesiastical framework and examine how the Enlightenment and Enlightenment-era philosophers, especially Kant, Hegel and their successors changed how people in the West understand and perceive God, man, society, religion, community, and much more. Then I trace the effect of those changes, noting how the worship of God is often radically skewed, even to the point where God is barely acknowledged.

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles and Excerpts:

• The Mass of Vatican II | Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J.
• The "Spirit of the Liturgy" website
• Worshipping at the Feet of the Lord: Pope Benedict XVI and the Liturgy | Anthony E. Clark, Ph.D.
• For "Many" or For "All"? | Excerpt from God Is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Music and Liturgy | Excerpt from The Spirit of the Liturgy | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• The Altar and the Direction of Liturgical Prayer | Excerpt from The Spirit of the Liturgy | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• How Should We Worship? | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Foreword to U.M. Lang's Turning Towards the Lord: Orientation in Liturgical Prayer | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Walking To Heaven Backward | Interview with Father Jonathan Robinson of the Oratory
• Does Christianity Need A Liturgy? | Martin Mosebach
• Rite and Liturgy | Denis Crouan, STD
• The Liturgy Lived: The Divinization of Man | Jean Corbon, OP
• Reflections On Saying Mass (And Saying It Correctly) | Fr. James V. Schall, S. J.
• Liturgy, Catechesis, and Conversion | Barbara Morgan

Writing the blogibus

Scriptorium ponders the question that has kept many a Catholic blogger awake at night: "What are the Latin words for the noun ‘blog’ and the verb ‘blogging’? Would blogis and blogere be appropriate?" Read the possible answers.

Bill Clinton rips on pro-life students and misrepresents...

... the beliefs of the vast majority of pro-lifers. From LifeNews.com:

Former president Bill Clinton made a campaign stop for Hillary in Steubenville, Ohio on Sunday and found himself greeted by more than 100 pro-life students from nearby Steubenville University. According to eye witnesses accounts, Clinton lost histemper and lashed out at the pro-life students during the speech.

Clinton's heated response came after being questioned on his support of abortion-on-demand.

"I gave you the answer. We disagree with you," Clinton said about the position he and Hillary Clinton hold on abortion.

Clinton relied on the old argument that pr-life advocates want to put women in prison, even though abortion bans have never targeted women because they are a second victim in the abortion process.

"You want to criminalize women and their doctors and we disagree,” he said of the pro-life advocates.

“If you were really pro-life, if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother as an accessory to murder in prison. And you won't say you want to do that because you know that because you know that you wouldn't have a lick of political support,”   he added.

So Bill Clinton is now a mind reader and a demagogue. Well, he always did have a tenuous relationship with facts and truth. Here is video of Clinton's outburst.

Dr. Francis Beckwith writes:

Certainly, the prolife students, who you can hear in the audio portion of this video, should not have heckled President Clinton. What the students did was disrespectful, and as a prolifer I condemn such conduct. Nevertheless, there's a way to deal with such hecklers without engaging in an ad hominem attack against prolifers in general, which is precisely what President Clinton did in his remarks. In fact, it seemed to me (and this could just be my own bias at work) that the President's harsh response revealed a deep and unhealthy bitterness that he harbors against prolife citizens. Sadly, instead of taking the high road and defending the permissibility of abortion by explaining why he believes the view of the students is mistaken (or at least should be tabled for a more appropriate venue), the former occupant of the White House chose the low road and attacked the intellectual integrity of every American citizen who holds the view.

Dr. Beckwith includes an excerpt from his book Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortionexce, which addresses the "Argument from Pity for the Women Prosecuted, Convicted, and/or Sentenced for Murder if Abortion is Made Illegal." Read it here. Also, read my December 2007 interview with Dr. Beckwith about his book, Roe vs. Wade, and abortion.